EUGENE MORRIS, APPELLEE,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT
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 court affirmed the revocation of probation but reversed the departure sentence, remanding for resentencing within the guidelines.
Appellant challenged the revocation of his probation and a guidelines departure sentence. The trial court orally found probation violations but failed…
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 Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1137] PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Eugene Morris, appeals a revocation of probation and the imposition of a guidelines departure sentence more than one cell from the applicable sentencing guidelines range. At the probation revocation hearing, the trial court orally pronounced that appellant had failed to make reports or follow the instructions of his probation supervisor. The court, however, did not enter a written order of revocation of probation. Further, in imposing the term outside the guidelines, the trial court failed to enter any written reasons to justify the departure sentence.
We find no reversible error in the trial court’s findings that appellant had failed to make his reports or follow the instructions of his probation supervisor. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of appellant’s probation. See Edwards v. State, 439 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
We are compelled, however, to remand with directions to the trial court to enter a written order, which conforms to its oral pronouncement. Clark v. State, 510 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Feezel v. State, 463 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In addition, we reverse the sentence imposed and remand for resentencing within the guidelines. Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990). The sentence imposed on remand “may be included within the original cell (guidelines range) or may be increased to the next higher cell (guidelines range)_” R. 3.701d(14), Fla.R.Crim.P. Affirmed in part and remanded with directions; reversed in part and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines.
JORGENSON, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dantler v. State, 584 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…oral pronouncements at the revocation hearing and sentencing. Gardner v. State, 569 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Earle v. State, 519 So. 2d 757, 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Haynes v. State, 571 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Morris v. [*199] State, 563 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Donley v. State, 557 So. 2d 943, 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). At the hearing in this cause, the trial court found appellant in violation of three conditions of probation. However, the order revoking probation fails to set forth the sp…
Authorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- Clark v. State, 510 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Edwards v. State, 439 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Feezel v. State, 463 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)