JASON S. LEE, 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 while no reversible error occurred regarding the revocation of probation, a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written order requires correction.
Appellant admitted violating only two conditions of probation, but the written order of revocation listed additional violations. This appeal followed …
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 Rule 3.800(B)(2) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This direct criminal appeal was brought pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Having reviewed the entire record, we agree that no reversible error occurred. We affirm the appellant’s revocation of probation and imposition of judgment and sentence. However, we note that the corrected written order of revocation of probation does not conform to the oral pronouncement, an issue preserved for review by a timely motion under rule 3.800(b)(2).
While the transcript of the hearing of revocation of probation shows that Appellant admitted violating only conditions (11) and (12) of his probation, the first paragraph of the written order of revocation of probation states that Appellant also admitted violating conditions (5) and (7) of his probation. An order of revocation of probation should conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement, and if it includes violations of conditions which were not addressed at the hearing on the violation of probation, those violations should be stricken. See Salvatierra v. State, 691 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Narvaez v. State, 674 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
We therefore strike the language stating that Appellant violated conditions (5) and (7) of his probation and remand for entry of a corrected order. See Walker v. State, 686 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Appellant need not be present.
AFFIRMED.
ALLEN, C.J., and BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Odom v. State, 15 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…. Jackson, 983 So. 2d at 572-73 (stating that sentencing errors under rule 3.800(b) “all involve errors related to the ultimate sanctions imposed”). Appellant misplaces his reliance on materially [*677] different facts in opinions like Lee v. State, 826 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), in which we concluded that the lack of conformity between the trial court’s oral pronouncement and the subsequent written probation revocation order was an issued preserved in the rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. Cf. Jones v. State, 876…
-
Chadwick Willacy v. State, 967 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 2007)…neffective for failing to object to the trial court’s failure to swear the jury prior to voir dire. Florida criminal procedure does not mandate that a judge swear the jury after the venire has already been sworn by the jury clerk. See Lott v. State, 826 So. 2d 457, 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), review denied, 845 So. 2d 891 (Fla.2003). Therefore, Willacy’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is legally insufficient. No evidentiary hearing was required. B. Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel9 Willacy rais…
-
Sessions v. State, 907 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…QUASHED for lack of jurisdiction. The case is REMANDED to the trial court for resentencing consistent with the February 28, 2005, judgment and sentence. Appellant need not be present when the trial court corrects the sentencing errors, Lee v. State, 826 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). ERVIN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Narvaez v. State, 674 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Salvatierra v. State, 691 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Patterson v. State, 686 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)