MICHAEL WATTS, 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 special condition of probation not orally pronounced must be stricken, the written order must reflect the orally pronounced term, and a separate written order revoking probation must be entered.
Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for violation of probation, raising several issues regarding the written order and conditions of probat…
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 Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, Judge.
Appellant appeals several aspects of his conviction and sentence for violation of probation. We agree with, and the state concedes, each point raised.
First, the special condition of probation requiring appellant to pay for the costs for urinalysis, breathalyzer and blood tests must be stricken because it was not orally pronounced. See Fernandez v. State, 677 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 683 So. 2d 485 (Fla.1996). Second, the written order of probation should be corrected to reflect a five-year term of probation which was the period pronounced orally by the trial court at the hearing.
Lastly, we must remand for the trial court to enter a separate written order revoking probation and reflecting the reasons for the revocation. See Taylor v. State, 681 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Mitchell v. State, 681 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Horne v. State, 675 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Glendon v. State, 669 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Wood v. State, 653 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
We reference some of the many eases where we have addressed this same point within the last year to point out that the failure of trial courts to enter a separate written order revoking probation appears to be a recurring problem. We urge the state, as well as defense counsel, to assist the trial court in ensuring that this requirement is met in cases involving revocation of probation.
Although the procedures followed in a revocation of probation proceeding may be less formal than a full-blown criminal trial, the requirement of a written order of revocation is a mandatory one. See Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 612, 105 S.Ct. 2254, 2258, 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985). It also facilitates appellate review.
GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Campbell v. State, 776 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…herefore affirm the revocation of probation and resulting sentencing, but remand for entry of written orders of revocation specifying the conditions appellant violated. See, e.g., Walker v.. State, 710 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Watts v. State, 688 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Taylor v. State, 681 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Glendon v. State, 669 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). AFFIRMED, but REMANDED. WARNER, C.J., GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Mata v. State, 31 So. 3d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…3d 449, 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). As asserted by Mata in point III, remand is nonetheless required so that the trial court may enter a written order of revocation specifying the conditions violated. See, e.g., Green, 23 So. 3d at 821; Watts v. State, 688 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The order of revocation entered on remand should specify that the revocation is predicated solely upon the three remaining charges, i.e., counts I, II, and VI. Affirmed in part; Reversed in part; and Remanded. WARNER and POLEN…
-
Laliberte v. Laliberte, 698 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…e modification of alimony and child support at least from the date of the filing of the petition for modification. See Alexander v. Alexander, 683 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); State, [*1294] Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Chapman, 688 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Morgan v. Morgan, 590 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)., In addition, we quash the portion of the order setting arrearages and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Decision QUASHED, REMANDED with instructions. COB…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 (U.S. 1985)
- Ferguson v. State, 669 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Mitchell v. State, 681 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Fernandez v. State, 677 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Ill. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Doyle, 681 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Ellis v. State, 681 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Rodriguez v. State, 653 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Wood v. State, 653 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Sola Caribe, Inc. v. Progressive Tech., Inc., 675 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)