CLARENCE WILLIAMS, 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.
Clarence Williams appealed his conviction and probation revocation sentence, raising a discrepancy between the trial court's oral pronouncements and written probation revocation order. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence but remanded for correction of the written order to conform to the oral findings.
The court has jurisdiction to review probation revocation issues raised contemporaneously with entry of a plea, and written sentencing documents, including probation orders, must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncements.
[1] A defendant may maintain a direct appeal of issues occurring contemporaneously with the entry of a plea, even after a plea of nolo contendere or guilty.
[2] A written sentencing document, including a probation order, must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncements.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a defendant can maintain a direct appeal, even when a plea of nolo contendere or guilty is entered, if the defendant raises issues which occur at the time the plea is entered”
Establishes the court's jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite the guilty/nolo contendere plea because the alleged error occurred contemporaneously with the plea entry
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was serving probation for burglary and robbery convictions. At the probation revocation hearing, Williams pled not guilty to Count I and no c…
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 Appeal From Conviction And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Chief Judge.
Clarence Williams appeals his conviction and the sentence imposed after revocation of the probation he was serving in connection with convictions for burglary and robbery. Williams’s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which he advises that he is unable to make a good faith argument that reversible error occurred in the lower tribunal. However, counsel has directed our attention to a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncements at the revocation of probation hearing and the written order of revocation of probation. The state has filed a motion to dismiss. We affirm the conviction and sentence, and deny the motion to dismiss.
With regard to the state’s motion to dismiss, it is well settled that “a defendant can maintain a direct appeal, even when a plea of nolo contendere or guilty is entered, if the defendant raises issues which occur at the time the plea is entered.” Ford v. State, 575 So. 2d 1335, 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 581 So. 2d 1310 (Fla.1991). See also Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898, 900 (Fla.1979); Pyle v. State, 596 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Because the alleged error in the order of revocation of probation occurred contemporaneously with entry of the plea and sentencing, the court has jurisdiction to consider the propriety of the revocation of probation order. Therefore, the motion to dismiss is not well taken, and is denied.
With regard to the alleged discrepancy between the trial court’s oral and written findings, our examination of the record reveals that the written order of revocation of probation contains a finding that appellant violated three conditions of his probation. The probation hearing transcript reflects that appellant pled not guilty to Count I, and pled no contest to Count II of the affidavit of violation of probation. The trial court accepted appellant’s no contest plea, adjudicated guilt, and imposed sentence. Although the court did not address the violations alleged in Counts I and III, the written order states that appellant violated all three counts alleged in the affidavit of violation of probation.
Written sentencing documents, including probation orders, must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncements. Payne v. State, 594 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Simmons v. State, 594 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Batie v. State, 593 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Hernandez v. State, 592 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Bellamy v. State, 590 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence, but remand the cause to the trial court for correction of the written probation order to conform to the oral findings at the probation hearing. The motion to dismiss is denied.
SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Long v. State, 886 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…sue on appeal is that the trial court’s written order revoking his probation is legally deficient because it failed to state the conditions of probation that appellant had violated. We agree and, therefore, reverse and remand. See Williams v. State, 604 So. 2d 8, 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (“Written sentencing documents, including probation orders, must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncements.”); see also Hamer v. State, 682 So. 2d 1221, 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Byrden v. State, 622 So. 2d 139, 140 (Fl…
-
Quinton Lavar Smith v. State, 49 So. 3d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…ted Condition 7, which required Appellant to remain gainfully employed, the court did not orally pronounce such a finding. A written order must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncements, and the oral pronouncements control. Williams v. State, 604 So. 2d 8, 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Here, because the court did not orally pronounce a violation of Condition 7, it cannot be used as a basis for revoking probation; consequently, we remand for correction of the written order to conform to the oral findings at…
-
Santiago v. State, 133 So. 3d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…ith the oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 49 So. 3d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Dailey v. State, 791 So. 2d 586, 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Tory v. State, 686 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Williams v. State, 604 So. 2d 8, 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Because it is unclear from the record whether or not the trial court would have revoked Defendant’s probation and sentenced him to ten years of imprisonment based solely upon the violations for failing to report for supervis…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Ford v. State, 575 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Pyle v. State, 596 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Hernandez v. State, 592 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Batie v. State, 593 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- K.K.P. v. State, 590 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Simmons v. State, 594 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Payne v. State, 594 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)