JOHNNY D. WILLIAMS, 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.
Johnny D. Williams appealed his judgment and sentence following revocation of his community control in two separate cases. The court affirmed the trial court's finding of willful and substantial violations of community control conditions but remanded to correct the written revocation orders to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement and to reconsider sentencing under the applicable guidelines.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding violations of conditions (9) twice and (12) once. However, the written revocation orders must be corrected to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement. On remand, the trial judge must reconsider sentencing under the applicable 1995 sentencing guidelines.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in revoking community control when the probation officer testifies to multiple violations of specific conditions.
[2] A written order of revocation must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement of violations.
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“A written order of revocation must conform with the trial court's oral pronouncement.”
Establishes the legal principle that required the court to remand for correction of the written orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams violated multiple conditions of his community control, including failing to pay costs of supervision and court costs, failing to register as …
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 Willful And Substantial Violation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges his judgment and sentence following the revocation of his community control in two separate cases. We find no merit in appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in finding that he wilfully and substantially violated his community control. Appellant’s probation officer testified that he had failed to pay costs of supervision in violation of condition (2), that he failed to register as a sex offender in violation of condition (9), that he failed on two occasions to remain confined to his approved residence in violation of condition (12), and that he failed to pay court costs in violation of condition (13). After a review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant violated conditions (9) twice and (12) once, and affirm the revocation.
We do, however, find merit in appellant’s argument regarding the revocation order. A review of the transcript reveals that the trial court orally found appellant in violation of condition (9) twice, in failing to register as a sex offender with the sheriffs office, and in failing to register with the Department of Motor Vehicles; and in violation of condition (12) for failing to remain confined to his approved residence on January 24, 1999. The written order of revocation in Case No. 97-0776 found appellant in violation of conditions (2), (12) twice, and (13). In Case No. 97-1032, the written order of revocation specifies a violation of conditions (2), (9) twice, and (13). A written order of revocation must conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Narvaez v. State, 674 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We, therefore, remand with directions that the revocation orders be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.
Finally, the offenses occurred on April 14, 1997, and between February 1 and March 11, 1997. Because appellant was sentenced pursuant to the 1995 sentencing guidelines, on remand, the trial judge is directed to reconsider his sentence. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Affirmed in part; remanded with directions.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Turner v. State, 873 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…of condition 3, three violations of condition 8, one violation each of conditions 15 and 17, and eight violations of condition 5. A written order of revocation of probation must conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Williams v. State, 764 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Accordingly, we remand with directions that the order of revocation be corrected to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. COVINGTON and VILLANTI, JJ., concur.…
-
Brown v. State, 813 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…n Park Boys and Girls Club. Brown reported for service there but was told that the club did not accept volunteers with felony records. This court reviews orders revoking probation and community control for an abuse of discretion. Williams v. State, 764 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In [*204] revocation proceedings, the State has the burden of proving willful and substantial violations of conditions of supervision by a preponderance of evidence. Smith v. State, 788 So. 2d 1131, 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). As to…
-
Jernigan v. State, 884 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…however, the written order of revocation listed condition (6) as one of the bases for revocation. It is well-settled that the written order of revocation must conform to the oral pronouncements made at the revocation hearing. See Williams v. State, 764 So. 2d 757, 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Accordingly, we remand with directions that the order of revocation be corrected to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Affirmed in part; remanded with directions. FULMER, SILBERMAN, and KELLY, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Narvaez v. State, 674 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)