GOLFIN
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.
Nykee Golfin appealed the revocation of his probation following a contested hearing. The Court affirmed the revocation but remanded for correction of a scrivener's error regarding the record of admissions to the violations.
The trial court properly revoked Golfin's probation and the resulting sentences are affirmed. However, the matter is remanded for the trial court to correct a scrivener's error in the records that failed to indicate Golfin did not admit to the violations despite being found in violation following the contested evidentiary hearing.
“because Golfin did not admit to the violations but was found in violation following a contested evidentiary hearing, we remand for the trial court to correct that scrivener's error”
Establishes the core holding: the revocation is affirmed but a scrivener's error in the record must be corrected because Golfin did not admit to violations.
Golfin was subject to probation supervision. The trial court conducted a contested evidentiary hearing regarding alleged probation violations. Followi…
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 Scrivener'S Error cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
NYKEE TYRELL GOLFIN,
Appellant,
V.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D2024-1182
February 18, 2026
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Barbara Twine Thomas, Judge.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Nykee Tyrell Golfin appeals from the order revoking his probation and the resulting sentences. We affirm the order and sentences without comment. However, because Golfin did not admit to the violations but was found in violation following a contested evidentiary hearing, we remand for the trial court to correct that scrivener's error. See Eskra v. State, 399 So. 3d 1224, 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024).
Affirmed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
2