JOYCE SMITH, 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.
Joyce Smith appealed the revocation of her community control, challenging the trial court's finding of violations. The appellate court affirmed the revocation but remanded because the written revocation order failed to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement, which had granted judgment of acquittal on two conditions.
The evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of community control as to the conditions on which the trial court did not grant acquittal. However, the written revocation order must be corrected because it does not conform to the oral pronouncement, as it references violations on which judgment of acquittal was granted.
[1] A probation revocation order will be affirmed if sufficient evidence supports at least one alleged violation, even if other alleged violations are not sufficiently proven…
[2] A written order revoking probation must conform to the 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“the trial court's written order of revocation does not conform to its oral pronouncement, so we remand this case to the trial court for correction of the written order”
Establishes the primary basis for remand—the discrepancy between oral and 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 intelligenceSmith was subject to community control with multiple conditions. At her revocation hearing, the trial court granted Smith's motion for judgment of acq…
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.
Joyce Smith challenges the trial court’s order revoking her community control.
We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Smith had violated her community control, and we affirm the revocation of community control.
However, the trial court’s written order of revocation does not conform to its oral pronouncement, so we remand this case to the trial court for correction of the written order. At Smith’s revocation hearing, the trial court granted Smith’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to the alleged violations of condition (9) concerning Smith’s alleged failure to appear for her required drug testing and condition (5) concerning Smith’s alleged failure to live free of violations of the law.
However, the trial court’s written order of revocation states that Smith has violated the conditions of supervision “as alleged in the Affidavit of Violation of Community Control dated 6-22-99.” Because the affidavit referenced in the order includes the allegations concerning violations of conditions (9) and (5) on which judgment of acquittal was granted, the written order does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement.
Therefore, we must remand for correction of the written order.1
We affirm the revocation of Smith’s community control, but remand to the trial court for correction of the written order of revocation.
PARKER, A.C.J., and GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., concur. . We recognize that Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla.2000), and Jelks v. State, 770 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), have held that an insufficient order revoking probation or community control does not constitute fundamental error that can be corrected on direct appeal. In those cases, the defendant had the opportunity to correct the error in the trial court under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) but did not, choosing instead to attack the order in the appeal. In this case, however, Smith did not have an opportunity to correct the error in the trial court because the trial court did not enter a written revocation order until this court relinquished jurisdiction during the pendency of this appeal for that specific purpose. Because of the lack of a written revocation order until after this appeal had been perfected, Smith could not proceed in the trial court under rule 3.800(b)(1) or (b)(2).
Therefore, rather than waste judicial resources by requiring Smith to file a rule 3.800 motion in the trial court now to correct this patent sentencing error, we simply direct the trial court to correct the written order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 898 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…Jelks v. State, 770 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Jones properly preserved this error by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(b)(2) on July 26, 2004. See Gammon v. State, 778 So. 2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Smith v. State, 780 So. 2d 166, 167 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Jelks, 770 So. 2d at 185; see also Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316, 316 n. 1 (Fla.2000). In that motion, he asked the trial court to enter [*210] such findings in writing. However, the trial court never ruled on his mot…
-
Genovese v. State, 226 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…3.800(b)(1) or rule 3.800(b)(2). Given this atypical procedural posture, we remand for the circuit court to enter an amended written order of revocation’that conforms to its oral pronouncement at the September 29, 2015, hearing. See Smith v. State, 780 So. 2d 166, 167 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Affirmed; remanded with directions. . CASANUEVA and BLACK, JJ., Concur. . Whenever such a discrepancy arises, the oral pronouncement governs over the written order. Turner v. State, 873 So. 2d 480, 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 20…
Authorities Cited
- 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)