PONCE CATO, 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.
Ponce Cato appealed two convictions for possession of cocaine following a guilty plea and probation violation admission. The court affirmed the convictions but remanded for entry of a proper written order of probation revocation specifying the violated conditions.
The trial court's reliance on an attached affidavit was insufficient; a formal written order of probation revocation that explicitly lists the specific conditions the court determined were violated is required.
[1] A trial court must enter a formal written order of revocation of probation that specifies the conditions of supervision that were violated.
[2] Attaching an affidavit of probation violation to a final judgment is insufficient to apprise an appellate court of the basis for revocation.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 is required to enter a formal order of violation of probation that lists the specific conditions the court determined Cato violated”
Establishes the mandatory procedural requirement for probation revocation orders
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCato entered a guilty plea to one charge of possession of cocaine and admitted to a resulting violation of probation. The trial court imposed sentence…
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 Anders V. California cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ponce Cato seeks review of two judgments and sentences for possession of cocaine rendered after he entered a guilty plea to one charge and admitted to a resulting violation of probation. Counsel filed briefs asserting no meritorious argument pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We agree with counsel that no meritorious issues exist and affirm the convictions. However, we remand for entry of a proper order of revocation of probation.
We previously relinquished jurisdiction for the entry of a proper order of revocation of probation pursuant to Monroe v. State, 760 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), and Donley v. State, 557 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), because the record did not contain a written order of revocation of probation that specified the conditions of supervision that the trial court determined Cato violated. The trial court declined to enter such an order, apparently under the erroneous belief that the court complied with Monroe and Donley by including the following provision in the final judgment: “The Court found the Defendant in violation of specific conditions of probation/community control, see attached affidavit.” As we stated in Monroe and Donley, the trial court is required to enter a formal order of violation of probation that lists the specific conditions the court determined Cato violated. Merely attaching an affidavit of violation of probation alleging violations of various conditions of probation to the final judgment is insufficient to apprise this court of the basis for the revocation of probation. Accordingly, we remand for entry of a proper order of violation of probation.
Affirmed and remanded with directions.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Robinson v. State, 74 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…order noting the specific conditions of probation that were violated.” King v. State, 46 So. 3d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). If a formal, written order does not exist, it is appropriate to “remand for entry of a proper order.... ” Cato v. State, 845 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Even though the record is clear, a formal, written order specifying each condition of probation violated must be entered in this case. Therefore, we remand for entry of an order in conformity with this opinion. Robinson als…
-
Butler v. State, 195 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ry of an order of revocation that comports with the trial court’s oral pronouncements and sets forth the condition(s) of probation Mr. Butler was determined to have violated. See Smith v. State, 940 So. 2d 530, 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Cato v. State, 845 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The judgment and sentences imposed in case number 2014-CF-003581 are affirmed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. VILLANTI, C.J., and LUCAS, J., Concur. . See In re Anders Briefs, 581 So.…
-
Harris v. State, 875 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…21 (Fla.1993). The trial court denied this claim finding that it can only be raised pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court is incorrect. Harris raised a Hale claim in a prior rule 3.800(a) motion. See Harris v. State, 845 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). This court held that the claim was facially insufficient because Harris did not allege that his crimes occurred in “a single criminal episode or that his claim can be determined without resort to extra-record facts.” 845 So. 2d a…
Previewing 3 of 15 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)
- Donley v. State, 557 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Monroe v. State, 760 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)