ROY KEIFER GORDON, 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.
Roy Gordon appealed the revocation of his probation and resulting sentence. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the probation revocation based on violation of one condition but reversed portions of the written order that incorrectly reflected a guilty plea and a second violation not supported by the record.
The court affirmed the revocation of probation and the thirty-seven month suspended sentence, finding that Gordon violated condition eight. The court reversed the portion of the revocation order indicating a guilty plea to the violations and reversed the finding that Gordon violated condition five. The case was remanded for the trial court to enter a corrected written order conforming to its oral pronouncements.
[1] A written order revoking probation must conform to the oral pronouncements made at the revocation hearing.
[2] A defendant's probation may not be revoked for conduct not charged in the affidavit alleging a violation of probation.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“When a court finds that a probationer has violated his probation, it must enter a formal order setting forth the conditions that it finds were violated.”
Establishes the requirement for written orders of probation revocation to specifically identify violated conditions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGordon was found to have allegedly violated two probation conditions. At an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found only one violation and revoked …
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 Scoresheet Error cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Chief Judge.
In this appeal, briefed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Roy Keifer Gordon challenges the revocation of his probation and subsequent sentence.
We affirm in part and reverse in part, remanding for the trial court to correct the order revoking probation to conform to its oral pronouncements. Gordon allegedly violated two probation conditions. In an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found a violation of only one condition and revoked probation on that ground. After an initial review of the case, this court relinquished jurisdiction for the trial court to enter a written order of probation revocation that satisfies Monroe v. State, 760 So. 2d 289, 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that a “Memo of Sentence” or “snapout” did not constitute a sufficient order of probation revocation), and Donley v. State, 557 So. 2d 943, 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (“When a court finds that a probationer has violated his probation, it must enter a formal order setting forth the conditions that it finds were violated.”).
Although the record clearly reflects that Gordon did not plead guilty to the violations and that Gordon was found to have violated only one condition, the written order stated that Gordon had pleaded guilty to violations of both conditions. These discrepancies highlight the need for a trial court to enter a sufficient order at the time of the hearing. We have received a supplemental brief on Gordon’s behalf, again filed under Anders, asserting that the written order should be corrected. Because the record supports the trial court’s finding that Gordon violated condition eight, we affirm the revocation of probation and subsequent sentence.
We reverse the portion of the revocation order that indicated a guilty plea to the violations, and we reverse the finding that Gordon violated condition five.
Gordon received a previously suspended sentence. Although it had no impact on his sentence, we also note that the score-sheet on resentencing incorrectly scored a primary offense and an additional offense as first-degree felonies when they should have been scored as second-degree felonies. Regardless of the scoresheet errors, the trial court properly imposed the suspended sentence of thirty-seven months.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded for correction.
STRINGER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Woods v. State, 987 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ntempt discussed in this opinion. Reversed and remanded. NORTHCUTT, C.J., Concurs. LaROSE, J., Concurs in result only. . See Abridge v. Crow, 903 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Sutton v. State, 838 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Gordon v. State, 827 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Braswell v. State, 804 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Monroe v. State, 760 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Grantham v. State, 735 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Peterson v. State, 730 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Donley v. State…
-
Dundas v. State, 891 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…hearing. Because the court based the violation of community control solely on condition 8, the revocation order should be corrected to comport with its oral pronouncement. See Turner v. State, 873 So. 2d 480, 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Gordon v. State, 827 So. 2d 346, 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Revear v. State, 497 So. 2d 1337, 1337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Sampson v. State, 375 So. 2d 325, 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. FULMER and SALCINES, JJ., concur.…
-
Bowers v. State, 835 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…obation but reverse the written order and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected revocation order that comports with its oral findings that the appellant violated only the condition of probation requiring him to report. See Gordon v. State, 827 So. 2d 346, 2002 WL 31174261 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct.2, 2002). AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. BARFIELD, KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Donley v. State, 557 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Monroe v. State, 760 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)