LEON GEORGE DANTLER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed probation revocation but remanded for the trial court to amend its written order to specify the particular probation conditions violated, as required by law.
A trial court's written probation revocation order must specifically identify the conditions of probation found to have been violated, conforming to the court's oral pronouncements at the revocation hearing.
[1] A trial court's written order revoking probation must specifically set forth the particular conditions of probation found to have been violated and must conform to the co…
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Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Dantler's probation was revoked after a hearing in which the trial court found him in violation of three conditions of probation.…
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 Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from an order revoking probation. Appellant contends the order is not supported by competent evidence, and that the trial court erred in failing to set forth in the probation order the specific conditions of probation found to have been violated. We affirm the order revoking probation, but remand for amendment of the order to reflect the specific terms and conditions of probation violated.
A trial court’s formal written order finding the probationer in violation of the terms and conditions of probation must conform to the 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. 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 specific grounds for the revocation.
Accordingly, the order revoking appellant’s probation is affirmed, but the cause is remanded with directions to enter a written order conforming to the court’s oral pronouncements at the hearing.
WIGGINTON and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burgin v. State, 623 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…l violation of probation which alone is sufficient to support a revocation of probation. 530 So. 2d at 1098. Moreover, it is an established rule that a written revocation order must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncements. Dantler v. State, 584 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1st DGA1991). Therefore, a revocation order which references violations of conditions of probation which were not proved, and were not orally pronounced by the trial court, will be remanded for conformance to the oral pronouncement. Gore v. St…
-
Moore v. State, 623 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…ntains a finding that appellant violated all three counts alleged in the affidavit. It is well settled that a written probation order must conform to the court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing, as the state properly concedes. See Dantler v. State, 584 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The third issue concerns the imposition of a new five-year period of probation. A trial court is without authority to extend a period of probation beyond the maximum permissible sentence for the underlying offense. Blackburn v.…
-
Sherrond Deangelo CUE v. State, 619 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…l written order finding the probationer in violation of the terms and conditions of probation must conform to the oral pronouncements at the revocation hearing and sentencing. Brundage v. State, 593 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Dantler v. State, 584 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). At the hearing in this cause, the trial court found appellant willfully and substantially violated one of the three alleged violations set forth in the affidavit of violation of probation. However, the order revoking probation f…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Donley v. State, 557 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Haynes v. State, 571 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Earle v. State, 519 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Yong-Son KIM v. Bradshaw, 569 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Gardner v. State, 569 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Williams v. State, 563 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Morris v. State, 563 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)