DAVID ANTHONY HARTSFIELD, 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 reviewed whether certain probation conditions, not orally pronounced at sentencing, must be stricken, finding one condition was orally pronounced and thus valid, while others were not.
The court held that condition 13 was valid as it was orally pronounced, but the appeal regarding conditions 4 and 6 was moot because the probation period had expired.
Anthony Hart challenged probation conditions 4, 6, and 13, arguing they should be stricken because they were not orally pronounced at sentencing. 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 Anders V. California cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
David Hartsfield appeals from a final order which revoked his probation. Revocation was premised upon Hartsfield’s admission that he absconded from supervision. We have reviewed this matter in accordance with our obligation under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); and affirm. See In Re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla.1991). We remand, however, for the entry of a corrected order which conforms to the trial court’s oral findings. Specifically, Hartsfield admitted to violations contained in a November 22, 1994, affidavit. The written order, however, refers to violations contained in a June 3, 1994, affidavit— violations for which the trial court heard no evidence. Upon remand, Hartsfield need not be present for the entry of a corrected order. See Dunlap v. State, 405 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA1981).
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duncan v. State, 135 So. 3d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…rickland, the court found that a felony conviction could not be sustained under section 832.05 because there was “no indication that the offer of payment by check preceded the services rendered.” Strickland, 559 So. 2d at 1289; accord Nece v. State, 683 So. 2d 622, 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that “the conviction must be reduced to a misdemeanor because there was no evidence that an offer of payment by check induced the services rendered”). As in Strickland and Helms, the evidence in the instant ease did…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- In re App. Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991)
- Dunlap v. State, 405 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Wimes v. ST. Lucie Cnty., 405 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)