JERRETT SWAFORD
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 probation and the resulting sentence but remanded the case to correct scrivener's errors in the revocation order for accuracy. The court also noted a separate issue of duplicative judgments, which was not raised on appeal.
The court affirmed the revocation and sentence, finding no reversible error. However, it remanded the case to correct specific scrivener's errors in the revocation order for accuracy.
[1] Scrivener's errors in a probation revocation order, including inaccurate statements regarding admission of violations, incorrect condition numbers, and erroneous findings…
[2] Duplicative adjudications of guilt entered upon revocation of probation are unauthorized and superfluous, though such errors not raised on appeal need not be addressed.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“We affirm the revocation and resulting sentence without further comment.”
Establishes the court's initial decision regarding the revocation and sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJerrett Swaford's probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to prison followed by sex offender probation. During the appeal, the court discovered sc…
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 Sua Sponte Remand cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Jerrett Swaford appeals the revocation of his probation and resulting sentence of 150 months in prison followed by ten years of sex offender probation for the underlying crime of sexual activity with a child.
We affirm the revocation and resulting sentence without further comment.
However, during the pendency of this appeal, this court requested supplementation of the record with the order of revocation, which was entered after the notice of appeal had been filed. Upon receipt of the order, several scrivener's errors were identified: (1) the order improperly states that Swaford admitted to violating his probation, but this is inaccurate as Swaford contested the allegations at a violation of probation hearing; (2) the order improperly refers to violations of conditions twenty-one and thirty, but it is clear based on the substantive descriptions of those conditions in the order and based on the transcript of the hearing that the trial court meant to refer to violations of conditions twenty and twenty-nine; and (3) the order improperly states that Swaford was found in violation of condition twenty-nine (referred to as condition thirty in the order), even though the transcript from the hearing reflects that the trial court declined to find him in violation of that condition.
Thus although we have concluded that no reversible error occurred, we sua sponte remand for correction of these scrivener's errors for purposes of accuracy. See Shuey v. State, 950 So. 2d 1285, 1285 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).
Swaford need not be present for the correction. See Royce v. State, 141 So. 3d 1278, 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
Because we are remanding for correction of scrivener's errors, we note one other problem reflected in the record before this court: the trial court entered a second judgment form upon revocation of probation. "Duplicative adjudications of guilt after revocation of probation or community control are superfluous, are unauthorized, and can cause undue confusion in future proceedings." West v. State, 232 So. 3d 522, 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (quoting Butler v. State, 195 So. 3d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)); see also Jackson v. State, 56 So. 3d 65, 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
We note, however, that while these types of duplicative judgments should be avoided, this issue was not raised on appeal.
Affirmed and remanded for correction of scrivener's errors.
CASANUEVA, KELLY, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D. J. S. v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Butler v. State, 195 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Jackson v. State, 56 So. 3d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Oree Deandre West v. State, 232 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
- Shuey v. State, 950 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Royce v. State, 141 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)