KATADREW JAMON SMITH, 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.
Katadrew Smith appealed the revocation of his probation and community control. The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the revocation and sentences but remanded for corrective measures regarding clerical errors in the written judgment and sentencing guidelines scoresheet, and to require a written revocation order specifying the violated conditions.
The revocation of probation and community control was proper and is affirmed. However, the trial court must correct clerical errors in the written judgment by properly labeling Count II as "attempted tampering with evidence" rather than "tampering with evidence," and must correct the sentencing guidelines scoresheet to designate the offense as a first-degree misdemeanor with the correct offense level and point score. Additionally, the trial court must enter a written revocation order specifying the probation and community control conditions that were violated.
[1] An attempt to commit a third-degree felony is classified as a first-degree misdemeanor.
[2] Clerical errors in a written judgment and sentencing guidelines scoresheet should be corrected on remand, even if they do not affect the sentencing range.
Previewing 2 of 4 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, as appellant concedes, these errors do not affect the guidelines sentencing range herein, for purposes of the record we believe the score-sheet should be corrected”
Establishes the court's rationale for requiring correction of scoresheet errors even when they do not affect the actual sentence imposed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was charged in Count II with attempted tampering with evidence, a third-degree felony under Florida statute that constitutes a first-degree misd…
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
MICKLE, Judge.
We affirm the revocation of appellant’s probation and community control and the sentences imposed thereon, but remand to the trial court for entry of a written revocation order and for correction of several clerical errors contained in the written judgment and sentencing guidelines scoresheet.
Appellant was charged in Count II with attempted tampering with evidence, a third-degree felony under section 918.13, Florida Statutes (1993). Pursuant to section 777.04(4)(f), Fla.Stat., an attempt of a third-degree felony is considered a first-degree misdemeanor. This count is correctly classified as a first-degree misdemeanor on the written judgment, but is incorrectly labeled “tampering with evidence” and should be corrected to read “attempted tampering with evidence.” The sentencing guidelines score-sheet contains the following three errors with regard to Count II: (1) inaccurate description of offense as “tampering”; (2) incorrect designation of offense as a felony; and (3) incorrect assignment of offense level 3 and point score assessment of 2.4. Although, as appellant concedes, these errors do not affect the guidelines sentencing range herein, for purposes of the record we believe the score-sheet should be corrected as follows: (1) label Count II as “attempted tampering with evidence”; (2) designate Count II as a first-degree misdemeanor; and (3) assign Count II the correct offense level of 1 with the corresponding point score of 0.2.
Last, although the trial court orally found that appellant violated his probation and community control, there is no written record of the conditions upon which the revocation was based. Therefore, upon remand, the trial court should enter a written revocation order setting forth the conditions of probation and community control which appellant was found to have violated. See Rogers v. State, 635 So. 2d 1026 (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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Monroe v. State, 673 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). On remand, the trial court should correct the written judgment to reflect that the third-degree felony to which the appellant pled and for which she was sentenced is child abuse, not “aggravated child abuse.” Smith v. State, 661 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The lower tribunal is directed to enter an explanatory written order of revocation conforming to its oral pronouncements. Jones v. State, 638 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). AFFIRMING violation of community control, VACATING A…
-
Williams v. State, 695 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…4(2)(d) and 843.01, Florida Statutes (1995), respectively. We vacate the [*732] sentences imposed in Circuit Court Case No. 95-145 and remand for the preparation of a correct sentencing guidelines scoresheet and for resentencing, see Smith v. State, 661 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (remanding for correction of sentencing guidelines score-sheet), and we direct the trial court to enter a proper written revocation order. The state argues that we should affirm the sentences because, upon correction of the sco…
Authorities Cited
- McQUITTER v. State, 622 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Caylor v. State, 624 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Aushua Rogers v. State, 635 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)