ANDRE WILLIAMS, A/K/A ANDRE GIVENS, 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.
The court held that a probation revocation order must only include violations admitted by the defendant, and written sentences must accurately reflect the oral pronouncement regarding jail credit.
The defendant admitted to some, but not all, alleged probation violations. The written sentences also contained discrepancies in jail credit compared …
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 Oral Pronouncement Vs. Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Andre Williams appeals the order revoking his probation and the jail credit listed on the written sentences. We affirm the revocation order and the sentences but remand for correction of errors.
Williams’s' probation officer filed an amended affidavit of violation of probation which set forth two violations. Williams admitted to one violation and part of a second violation, but he specified that he was not admitting to the remaining allegations contained in the second violation. The trial court accepted the conditional admission of guilt; however, the revocation of probation order included the additional allegations of the second violation which the trial court indicated it would exclude. Because the state presented no evidence regarding the violations, the order should contain only the facts to which Williams admitted. See Robinson v. State, 366 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Additionally, the state concedes that the sentences in these cases do not reflect accurately the trial court’s oral pronouncement regarding jail credit. The trial court stated that Williams was entitled to twelve years and 214 days jail credit or a total of 4594 days. The sentences indicate that he was credited with 2119 days in three eases and 2080 days in the remaining five cases. A trial court’s written sentence must not vary from its oral pronouncement. Wright v. State, 600 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
We affirm the revocation of Williams’s probation but remand for the trial court to strike that portion of the order which finds a violation to which Williams did not admit. Further, the cause is remanded to allow correction of the apparent clerical errors regarding jail credit in the sentences. The judgments and sentences are affirmed in all other respects.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wright v. State, 600 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Robinson v. State, 366 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)