MICHAEL PINELLO
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed the revocation of Michael Pinello's probation and sentence but remanded the case for correction of the written order. The written order failed to specify which probation conditions were violated, contrary to the trial court's oral pronouncement.
Yes, a written order revoking probation must specify the conditions found to have been violated and must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement.
[1] A trial court's written order revoking probation must specify the particular conditions of probation that the court found to have been violated and must conform to the tr…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Following our independent review of the record pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), see also In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991), we affirm without comment the revocation of his probation and resulting sentence but remand for entry of a corrected written order of revocation that is consistent with the trial court's oral pronouncement.”
Establishes the appellate court's decision to affirm the revocation but remand for correction of the written order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State alleged multiple probation violations against Michael Pinello. At the revocation hearing, the trial court orally stated it found specific co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Written Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; William D. Sites, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Stephania A. Gournaris, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge. Michael Pinello seeks review of the trial court's May 2019 order revoking his probation and imposing sentence. Following our independent review of the record pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), see also In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991), we affirm without comment the revocation of his probation and resulting sentence but remand for entry of a corrected written order of revocation that is
- 2 - consistent with the trial court's oral pronouncement. See, e.g, Jones v. State, 221 So. 3d 736, 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (remanding "solely to have the trial court enter a written revocation order that matches its oral pronouncement after the violation hearing").
In the violation affidavit, the State alleged two violations of condition five and one violation each of condition nine, special condition seven, and special condition nine. At the revocation hearing, the trial court stated that it found the evidence sufficient to establish one violation of condition five and the violations of condition nine and special condition seven. The written order, however, states generally that "the court finds the defendant is in violation and that the violations are willful and substantial." In its written order of revocation, the trial court is required to specify the conditions of probation that it found to have been violated. Cato v. State, 845 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ("[T]he trial court is required to enter a formal order of violation of probation that lists the specific conditions the court determined Cato violated." (emphasis omitted)).
That written order "must conform to the oral pronouncement at the hearing." Narvaez v. State, 674 So. 2d 868, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (first citing Corona v. State, 642 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); and then citing Hawthorne v. State, 583 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)).
Here, the trial court's written order fails to specify the conditions that it found Pinello to have violated.
Accordingly, we remand for the court to enter a written order that specifies those conditions consistent with its oral pronouncement.
Affirmed; remanded with instructions. MORRIS and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Narvaez v. State, 674 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Corona v. State, 642 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Hawthorne v. State, 583 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)