JOHN URBANIAK
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
SLEET, Judge. John Urbaniak challenges the trial court's order revoking his probation and the sentence imposed upon revocation. We affirm
the order and sentence without comment but remand for correction of scrivener's errors in the revocation order. Despite the trial court's oral pronouncement that Urbaniak violated special condition four of his probation, the written order incorrectly states that he violated conditions two and ten.
Additionally, the written order incorrectly states that Urbaniak admitted the violation when in actuality the trial court determined him to be in violation following a revocation hearing.
Accordingly, we remand for corrections of these scrivener's errors. See Cook v. State, 336 So. 3d 409, 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (affirming revocation of probation but remanding "for entry of an amended order correctly reflecting the conditions of probation that Cook was found to have violated"); Zurline v. State, 312 So. 3d 995, 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (affirming but remanding for the trial court to correct the order of revocation "to reflect that Zurline was found to be in violation after an evidentiary hearing"). Urbaniak need not be present for the corrections. See Swaford v. State, 320 So. 3d 331, 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).
Affirmed and remanded.
SILBERMAN and LUCAS, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Urbaniak v. State, 336 So. 3d 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…rs. See Cook v. State, 336 So. 3d 409, 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (affirming revocation of probation but remanding "for entry of an amended order correctly reflecting the conditions of probation that Cook was found to have violated"); Zurline v. State, 312 So. 3d 995, 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (affirming but remanding for the trial court to correct the order of revocation "to reflect that Zurline was found to be in violation after an evidentiary hearing"). Urbaniak need not be present for the corrections. See Swa…1 / 2
-
Bain Complete Wellness, LLC v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 356 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…(Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (quoting Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 573 (Fla. 2005)). "However, to the extent a trial court's order on fees is based on an issue of law, this court applies de novo review." Rivera Chiropractic, Inc. v. Rosello, 336 So. 3d 409, 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (quoting Lago v. Kame By Design, LLC, 120 So. 3d 73, 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)). In relevant part, section 57.105(1) provides Upon . . . motion of any party, the court shall award a reasonable attorney's fee . . . on any claim o…
-
Kovar LAW Grp., PLLC v. Jordan (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…llness, LLC v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 356 So. 3d 866, 870–71 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) ("[T]o the extent a trial court's order on fees is based on an issue of law, this court applies de novo review." (quoting Rivera Chiropractic, Inc. v. Rosello, 336 So. 3d 409, 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022))). Ordinarily, a party prevailing on an unjust enrichment claim bears its own fees. See Trytek v. Gale Indus., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1194, 1199 n.3 (Fla. 2009) ("At common law, each party was required to pay its own attorneys' fees…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Urbaniak v. State, 336 So. 3d 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
- D. J. S. v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)