CHRISTOPHER THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that Rule 3.790, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, does not require a written order specifying reasons for probation revocation.
Appellant was convicted of new crimes, violating his probation. He appealed the revocation, arguing the trial court erred by not entering a written or…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Christopher Thomas, appeals a revocation of probation. We affirm.
Appellant violated the terms of his probation by being convicted of other substantive crimes: burglary, theft, dealing in stolen property, attempted possession of cocaine, and sale of cocaine. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in revoking his probation, and in sentencing him, without entering a written order specifying the reasons for revocation.
We find no error. Rule 3.790, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure prescribes the procedure for a revocation of probation, judgment, and sentence. Nothing in the rule requires a written order. Appellant relies on cases where the trial court made oral pronouncements which did not conform to the written reasons provided. See Guerra v. State, 567 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Esbenshade v. State, 494 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Because of the inconsistencies between the oral pronouncements and the written orders, the revocations in those cases were reversed.
In this case, the order revoking probation contained no written reasons, and therefore no inconsistency. Accordingly, we find those cases to be inapplicable and affirm appellant’s revocation of probation.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCLOUD v. State, 653 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…and remanded. . Defendant asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support a number of the violations enumerated in the affidavit Of violation, and that consequently the unsupported violations should have been stricken. .In Thomas v. State, 585 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), this court declined a defendant's request to remand for entry of "a written order specifying the reasons for revocation.” Id. at 476. We distinguish that case for two reasons. First, there is no indication that in Thomas the requ…
-
Jasper Robinson v. State, 702 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…6-year limit for youthful offenders. His sentence is within the statutory maximum for robbery.3 AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . Robbery in case number 93-2135; robbery and grand theft in case number 95-25895. . See Thomas v. State, 585 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). . Fifteen years. §§ 812.13(2)(c) and 775.082(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (1993).…
-
Joachin v. State, 199 So. 3d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…ct the basis for the revocation of probation. See Grissom v. State, 819 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); McCloud v. State, 653 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Watts v. State, 688 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). This is not a case like Thomas v. State, 585 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), where the question was whether a defect in the written order of revocation was remedied by the judge’s statements reflected in the transcript. See McCloud, 653 So. 2d at 455 n. 2 (“The Thomas court evidently took the view that on…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Esbenshade v. State, 494 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Kanecke v. George's Crane Serv., Inc., 567 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)