JOHN CAYLOR, 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.
John Caylor appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm in commission of a felony and related third-degree felonies. Though counsel found no reversible error, the court identified two correctable defects: a scrivener's error in the written judgment and the absence of a written probation revocation order, and remanded for these corrections while affirming the sentence.
The seven-year sentence and five-year concurrent sentences were within statutory maximums and guidelines ranges and contained no reversible error. However, two technical corrections were required: correcting a scrivener's error designating an offense count incorrectly, and entering a written revocation order specifying the probation conditions violated.
[1] A sentence may be increased by one cell or guidelines range for each violation of probation.
[2] A scrivener's error in a written judgment may be corrected on remand.
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“Where there are multiple violations of probation, the sentence may be increased one cell or guidelines range for each violation.”
Establishes the guideline rule justifying the three-cell increase in Caylor's sentencing range based on three probation violations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCaylor scored 65 points on a Category 8 sentencing scoresheet, placing him in a community control or 12-30 month range. He violated community control …
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 Of Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), representing that counsel can make no good faith argument that reversible error occurred, but identifying two technical errors for correction upon review of this cause. The state has filed a motion to dismiss, characterizing the appeal as an unnecessary and frivolous example of legal churning, and appropriate for sanctions pursuant to Walker v. State, 579 So. 2d 348, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We remand with instructions.
Our examination of the record, in accordance with State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla.1987), has revealed no discernible error with regard to the sentencing disposition in this case. Initially, appellant scored sixty-five points on a Category 8 scoresheet, for a recommended sentencing range of community control or twelve to thirty months of incarceration. In June 1990, November 1990, and November 1991, appellant committed violations of community control and probation. Where there are multiple violations of probation, the sentence may be increased one cell or guidelines range for each violation. State v. Maxwell, 594 So. 2d 287, 288 (Fla.1992); Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273, 275 (Fla.1992). A three-cell increase placed appellant in the permitted sentencing range of three and one-half to seven years. Therefore, the imposition of a seven-year sentence for the second-degree felony of possession of a firearm in commission of a felony, and the five-year concurrent sentences for the third-degree felony convictions were within the statutory maximum for the respective offenses, and within the guidelines sentencing range.
However, the record also reveals two matters that should be addressed on remand. As noted by appellant’s counsel, in circuit court case 90-145, the written judgment incorrectly designates the offense of possession with intent to sell or deliver as Count V, rather than Count IV. This scrivener’s error should be corrected on remand. In addition, although the trial court orally found appellant violated his probation, there is no record of the conditions upon which revocation was based. Therefore, upon remand, the trial court should enter a "written revocation order setting forth the conditions of probation which appellant was found to have violated. George v. State, 577 So. 2d 996, 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Regarding the state’s motion to dismiss, appellant’s counsel properly notes that in Ford v. State, 575 So. 2d 1335, 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 581 So. 2d 1310 (Fla.1991), this court ruled that a direct appeal can be maintained even from a guilty or nolo contendere plea, if the defendant raises issues which occur at the time sentence is entered. See also Williams v. State, 604 So. 2d 8, 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In this case, the failure to enter a written order of revocation of probation, and the scrivener’s error on the written judgment, occurred contemporaneously with the plea and sentencing. Thus, contrary to the state’s assertions, this court has jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
Accordingly, this cause is remanded for correction of the scrivener’s error on the written judgment, and for entry of a written order specifying the probation conditions violated. In all other respects, the judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. The state’s motion to dismiss is denied.
ERVIN, JOANOS and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aushua Rogers v. State, 635 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…he written probation order. Based on the foregoing, we reverse the revocation of probation herein, and remand for entry of a written order specifying the terms and conditions relied upon by the trial court for revocation. Brundage; Caylor v. State, 624 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.…
-
Katadrew Jamon Smith v. State, 661 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…(Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (when trial court orally pronounces conditions of which probationer has been found in violation, but fails to place them in written form, remand is necessary for entry of order conforming to oral pronouncement); Caylor v. State, 624 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); McQuitter v. State, 622 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). ERVIN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.…
-
Rosebush v. State, 765 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)….Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm the judgment 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.…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987)
- Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1992)
- Ford v. State, 575 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Walker v. State, 579 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Williams v. State, 604 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Rosanna Murray George v. State, 577 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Mixon v. State, 594 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1992)