JULIO BALLESTER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
GREEN, Judge.
We affirm Julio Ballester’s judgment and sentence which resulted from the revocation of his probation.
The trial court’s written order recites that revocation was based on the violation of condition seven, proscribing the use of narcotics, and condition five, a new law violation, to wit: petit theft. However, the court’s oral pronouncement referenced only condition seven.
This matter was not addressed to the trial judge. Because this error is nonprejudicial to Ballester, we find it is not fundamental error. See Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000); Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla.2000); Jelks v. State, 770 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The error has therefore been waived.
Affirmed.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parris v. State, 974 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…a rule 3.800(b) motion. Brown, 786 So. 2d at 1258 n. 1. . In addition to Thomas, there are several other cases on all fours but none were cited to us by either party. See, e.g., Evett v. State, 947 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Ballester v. State, 779 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Gammon v. State, 778 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We assume that this was an oversight and admonish counsel for both parties to be more thorough with their research. It is counsel’s responsibility to advise the court of availab…
Authorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2000)
- Charles v. State, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2000)
- Antoine Jelks v. State, 770 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)