TOMMY ALLEN WATKINS, 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.
Tommy Allen Watkins appealed his convictions for attempted sexual battery and sexual activity with children. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but struck an improper court cost, reversed and remanded regarding a sentencing condition due to conflicting age specifications and overbreadth, and remanded for clarification of the probation condition.
The court affirmed the convictions and found no error. The court struck the $2 court cost assessed under section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes. The court reversed and remanded the sentencing condition because of an inconsistency in the age specification (16 versus 18) between the oral pronouncement and written orders, and because the condition as announced was overbroad in barring any contact with children rather than only unsupervised contact.
[1] A court may affirm convictions despite striking certain costs assessed against a defendant.
[2] A scrivener's error in a written order of probation may warrant remand for correction when it conflicts with the trial court's oral pronouncement.
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“After an independent review of the record and the law, we see no error affecting his convictions and, therefore, affirm.”
Establishes the court's affirmance of the convictions after independent review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of eight counts of attempted sexual battery by a person over eighteen years of age upon a child less than twelve years of …
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals his judgments and sentences for eight counts of attempted sexual battery by a person over eighteen years of age upon a child less than twelve years of age and ten counts of sexual activity with a child by a person in familial or custodial authority. The defendant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). After an independent review of the record and the law, we see no error affecting his convictions and, therefore, affirm. However, we strike the $2 court cost assessed pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993). See Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc).
In addition, we remand for correction of a scrivener’s error. At the sentencing hearing, the state requested that the trial court order as a condition of probation that the defendant have “no contact with any children under the age of 18 without adult supervision.” The trial court announced that the defendant “have no contact with children under the age of 16.” The clerk notes contained in the record show that the trial court ordered “no unsupervised contact with any children under the age of 18 years.” The order of probation provides “no unsupervised contact with any children under 18 years of age.”
The state concedes that the order of probation conflicts with the trial court’s oral pronouncement as to the age of minors with whom the defendant is forbidden to have contact. We are unable to determine whether the age inconsistency between the oral pronouncement and the various written notations was an intentional order, an inadvertent pronouncement, or. a transcription error. Also, we note that the condition of probation as announced is too broad because it bars any contact with children rather than barring “unsupervised” contact. See Graham v. State, 658 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to address the inconsistency and clarify the probation condition in accordance with this opinion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
FRANK, A.C.J., and PARKER and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wagland v. State, 705 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…ion. Accordingly, we reverse the order of revocation. Because Wagland’s probation must be reinstated, we direct the trial court to refashion the special condition at issue to minimize the potential for unintentional violations. See Watkins v. State, 666 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (probation condition barring contact with children under the age of sixteen is too broad); Swatzell v. State, 691 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1997)(striking special condition prohibiting unsupervised contact with children under the a…
-
Schultz v. State, 793 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ation as over-broad and inconsistent. Specifically, he objects to condition sixteen that prohibits association with minors with no limiting language which could lead to a violation for unintentional contact with those children. See Watkins v. State, 666 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Graham v. State, 658 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Clarification of this condition may not be strictly necessary, as violations must be established as wilful. See Manon v. State, 740 So. 2d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Nevert…
-
Danion Lennon v. State, 913 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…rally pronounce $5,100. The state counters that there is an obvious transcription error and urges affirmance or remand solely for the court to clarify. We accordingly remand for the trial court to clarify the restitution order. See Watkins v. State, 666 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (reversing sentencing order and remanding for court to address the inconsistency between the oral pronouncement and the written order and clarify the probation condition). Affirmed; Remanded For Further Proceedings. POLEN, KLEIN…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Matos v. Budget Rent A CAR Sys., Inc., 658 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)