GREGORY L. 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.
Gregory Williams appealed his probation revocation, challenging both a discrepancy between the trial court's oral and written findings and the court's finding that he violated probation conditions lacking specified deadlines. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the written order did not conform to the oral pronouncement and that probation violations cannot be found where conditions lack specific completion deadlines and the defendant remains willing and able to comply.
The appellate court held that the written order did not conform to the trial court's oral findings because the affidavit alleged failure to pay supervision costs, but no such finding was made at the hearing. Additionally, the court held that probation violations cannot be found for conditions lacking specific completion deadlines when the probationer is still on probation and willing to comply.
[1] A written order revoking probation must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement of findings.
[2] A probation violation finding may be erroneous where the probationer had not yet reached a deadline for compliance and remained willing to fulfill the condition.
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 written order does not conform to the trial judge's oral findings”
Establishes the core discrepancy between what the judge said from the bench and what the written order stated regarding the specific violations found.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was placed on probation with conditions including paying supervision costs, undergoing drug evaluation, performing community service, and com…
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
CAMPBELL, MONTEREY, (Senior) Judge.
Appellant challenges the revocation of his probation and argues that the written order revoking his probation does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Appellant also asserts that the trial court erred in finding that he violated two conditions of his probation where neither condition imposed a deadline for compliance. We agree with both arguments and reverse.
An affidavit of violation of probation alleged that appellant had violated his probation by 1) failing to pay the cost of supervision, 2) failing to undergo drug evaluation, 8) failing to perform any community service, and 4) failing to enter and successfully complete a family domestic violence program. At the revocation hearing, appellant’s probation officer testified that appellant had not yet received a drug evaluation due to transportation problems and had failed to complete a domestic violence program. Appellant explained that he was not unwilling to comply with these conditions, but had not completed them because he believed he still had time. After hearing the evidence, the judge found that appellant had wilfully and substantially violated his probation due to his failure to undergo drug evaluation, perform community service, and enter and complete a domestic violence program.
Despite these oral findings, the judge entered a written order stating that appellant was found guilty as alleged in the affidavit. There was no evidence presented and, thus, no finding that appellant failed to pay the cost of his supervision as the affidavit alleges. Mr. Williams argues, the State concedes, and we agree that the written order does not conform to the trial judge’s oral findings.
Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in finding that he failed to complete two conditions of his probation because appellant still had time remaining on probation to satisfy the conditions and neither term imposed a deadline for compliance. We agree. This court has reversed violation of probation findings in the past where the offenders were still on probation and willing to comply but failed to meet conditions of probation contained in a probation order which did not contain a specific time for completion. See, e.g., Butler v. State, 775 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Haynes v. State, 571 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Although the trial court was correct in finding that appellant had failed to comply with the community service condition, it is unclear from the record whether the trial court would have revoked his probation based upon a violation of this one condition alone.
We therefore reverse the order of revocation and remand the cause to permit the court to consider whether that one violation alone warrants revocation and, if the trial court so finds, to enter a written order in conformity therewith. Reversed and remanded.
FULMER, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. State, 907 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…not determine whether the court would have revoked Mr. Robinson’s probation based solely on his violations of conditions 3 and 9, we reverse and remand with instructions. See Davis v. State, 862 So. 2d 931, 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Williams v. State, 787 So. 2d 180, 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). On remand, the court should consider whether Mr. Robinson’s violations of conditions 3 and 9 warrant revocation of his probation. In the event that the court does not find these violations warrant revocation, the court shal…
-
Mitchell v. State, 871 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…of the revocation where the remaining violation involved a failure to perform community service because the record was unclear as to whether the trial court would have revoked the probation based on that violation alone. See also Williams v. State, 787 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (reversing and remanding for reconsideration where remaining violation was “failing to perform any community service”). We find that Mitchell’s remaining violation of condition 3 for changing his residency without consent, leavin…
-
J.F. v. State, 889 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…e Stevens v. State, 823 So. 2d 319, 322 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2002)(remanding for the trial court to consider whether it would have revoked probation based only on violation of failing to perform work hours in equal monthly installments); Williams v. State, 787 So. 2d 180, 182 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2001)(re-manding for the trial court to consider whether it would have revoked probation on the sole basis of failure to perform community service). REVERSED and REMANDED. GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Butler v. State, 775 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Haynes v. State, 571 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)