SCOTT W. NOLEN, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed probation revocation but remanded for entry of a written order specifying the violated probation conditions, as required by law.
A probation revocation may be affirmed on the merits but must be remanded if the trial court fails to enter a written order specifying which conditions of probation were violated.
[1] A probation revocation order must specify in writing which conditions of probation were violated, even if the trial court made oral findings of violation.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Although the court orally found that appellant committed the new substantive drug offense and lied about being dropped off several blocks from his home by a co-worker who wanted to avoid traffic close to appellant's home, the order following revocation does not specify what conditions were violated.”
Court explaining why remand was necessary despite oral findings of violation.
Appellant Nolen's probation was revoked based on allegations that he committed a new drug offense and lied about being dropped off near his home. The …
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 Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
In this Anders appeal, the pro se appellant makes several arguments challenging the revocation of his probation, only one of which has any merit.
Although appellant asserts correctly that the affidavit of violation of probation incorrectly stated that appellant solicited to deliver cocaine, rather than purchase cocaine, as the trial testimony tended to show, we are not persuaded that this fact rendered the revocation improper. The offense here was alleged, albeit improperly. In such a ease, failure to raise the imperfect allegation at trial results in waiver on appeal. Brewer v. State, 413 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 426 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1983). Appellant’s failure to raise this issue below has resulted in waiver. Appellant’s second point is well taken, however. He maintains that the court erred in failing to enter a written order specifying the violations found. We agree. Although the court orally found that appellant committed the new substantive drug offense and lied about being dropped off several blocks from his home by a co-worker who wanted to avoid traffic close to appellant’s home, the order following revocation does not specify what conditions were violated. Under Miles v. State, 590 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) and Dietz v. State, 534 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), we must remand for entry of a proper order specifying the conditions of probation that appellant violated.
Probation revocation affirmed; remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BLUE, J., and BROWNELL, SCOTT M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lavontrai T. Darby v. State, 198 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…was found to have violated. Accordingly, we remand for the entry of an amended order of revocation setting forth the conditions violated and conforming to the trial court’s oral pronouncements made during the revocation hearing. See Nolen v. State, 627 So. 2d 580, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Oliver v. State, 819 So. 2d 816, 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Mr. Darby need not be present for this ministerial task. Affirmed; remanded with directions. WALLACE, KHOUZAM, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur. ' •…
Authorities Cited
- Brewer v. State, 413 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Dietz v. State, 534 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Miles v. State, 590 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)