GEORGE B. BYRDEN, 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.
George Byrden appealed the revocation of his community control sentence on grounds of insufficient evidence, failure to state specific grounds for revocation, and improper imposition of court costs. The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the revocation based on sufficient evidence of willful violations, but reversed regarding the requirement to state specific grounds in writing and the improper assessment of a $200 felony court cost by the deputy clerk.
The court affirmed that there was sufficient evidence of willful violation of two community control conditions. The court reversed the failure to state specific grounds in the written order and required remand for entry of a conforming written order. The court affirmed the $20 statutorily mandated Crimes Compensation Trust Fund cost but reversed the $200 felony cost assessment as it was imposed only on a form executed by the deputy clerk rather than as an order of the court.
[1] A trial court's revocation of community control is supported by sufficient evidence when the defendant willfully violates conditions of that control.
[2] A written order revoking community control must state the specific grounds for revocation enumerated at the hearing.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Because the final order revoking community control did not state the two specific grounds for revocation enumerated at the hearing — that appellant was away from his residence without permission seven times, and that he failed to submit to a urinalysis — we remand the cause with directions to the trial court to enter a written order which conforms with the court's oral pronouncements at the hearing.”
Establishes the requirement that written orders revoking community control must specifically state the grounds for revocation as articulated at the hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceByrden was subject to community control with specific conditions. The trial court held a hearing and found that Byrden violated community control by b…
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 Crimes Compensation Trust Fund cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant, George Byrden, filed an appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), noting three possible errors in the trial court’s revocation of Byrden’s community control. Appellant claimed there was insufficient evidence that he violated community control, that the trial court failed to set forth the specific grounds for revocation in the final order, and that the court erred in imposing $220 in court costs. We affirm the court’s revocation, as there was sufficient evidence that appellant willfully violated two conditions of his community control. We reverse, however, in regard to appellant’s second and third issues. Because the final order revoking community control did not state the two specific grounds for revocation enumerated at the hearing — that appellant was away from his residence without permission seven times, and that he failed to submit to a urinalysis — we remand the cause with directions to the trial court to enter a written order which conforms with the court’s oral pronouncements at the hearing. Dantler v. State, 584 So. 2d 198, 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Regarding appellant’s third issue, statutorily mandated costs may be imposed on a defendant without providing actual notice by oral pronouncement at the time of sentencing. State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla.1991). The $20 cost for the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund is statutorily mandated under Section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1989), and was included in the judgment form, so there is no error in regard to this amount.
Although the $200 felony cost is statutorily mandated under Section 27.-3455(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), this assessment appears only on the uniform commitment to custody form. Such form was executed by the deputy clerk and merely witnessed by the trial judge; therefore, it cannot be characterized as an order of the court. There is no authority that would permit a deputy clerk to modify the sentence imposed by the trial court. Accordingly, we direct that the assessment of the $200 felony court cost be struck from the uniform commitment to custody form.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MINER, J., and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunter v. State, 651 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…on that he did not receive notice of the state’s intention to have costs imposed, we disagree. Statutorily mandated costs may be imposed on a defendant without providing actual notice by oral pronouncement at the time of sentencing. Byrden v. State, 622 So. 2d 139, 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). This is because publication in the Laws of Florida or the Florida Statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions. State v, Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139, 142 (Fla.1991). Thus, it cannot be sa…
-
Long v. State, 886 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…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 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Dantler v. State, 584 So. 2d 198, 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding that the trial court’s formal written order finding a probationer in violation of the terms and conditions of probation must conform to the oral pronounceme…
-
Rosebush v. State, 765 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…ent and sentences entered following revocation of appellant’s community control. We remand, however, with directions to the trial court to enter a written order of revocation. See Caylor v. State, 624 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Byrden v. State, 622 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Covert v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D1153, — So. 2d -, 2000 WL 571384 (Fla. 2d DCA May 12, 2000). AFFIRMED and REMANDED with directions. ERVIN, MINER and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1991)
- Dantler v. State, 584 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)