CLEVELAND BALDWIN, 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.
Florida's First District Court of Appeal affirmed a probation revocation based on competent, substantial evidence showing willful violation of monthly reporting requirements, but remanded for correction of the written order to conform to the trial court's oral findings.
The appellate court affirmed the revocation of probation because competent, substantial evidence supported finding that Baldwin willfully violated Condition 1 (monthly reporting requirement), and failure to make monthly reports is sufficient in itself to justify revocation. However, the court remanded for entry of a written order that specifically identifies the violated condition rather than merely referencing violations outlined in an affidavit.
[1] A judgment and sentence will be affirmed in an Anders appeal.
[2] A revocation order must accurately reflect the specific violations of probation found by the court.
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“Competent, substantial evidence supports the court's oral finding that appellant willfully violated his probation in a material respect by failing to make monthly reports to his probation officer between December 12, 2000, and April 4, 2001.”
Establishes that the core finding of willful violation was supported by competent evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBaldwin was placed on probation with multiple conditions, including a requirement to make monthly reports to his probation officer by the fifth day of…
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.
Appellate counsel filed a brief as permitted by In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla.1991), noting that the written order of revocation of probation did not conform with the court’s oral pronouncement. Appellant filed a pro se brief seeking reversal of the probation violation order because (1) the trial court failed to state in the written order of revocation the specific conditions he was found to have violated, and (2) no showing was made that he willfully violated the terms of his probation. Competent, substantial evidence supports the court’s oral finding that appellant willfully violated his probation in a material respect by failing to make monthly reports to his probation officer between December 12, 2000, and April 4, 2001. We therefore affirm the revocation ruling. See State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259, 261 (Fla.2002); Burgin v. State, 623 So. 2d 575, 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (both stating that violation of the monthly reporting requirement is sufficient in and of itself to justify revocation).
Nevertheless, the written revocation order, which found appellant “in wilful violation of his probation as outlined in the affidavit,” does not conform to the trial court’s oral ruling. The affidavit alleged violations of eight conditions of probation and a violation of the restitution order, yet the trial court’s oral findings support a violation of only Condition 1, which required appellant to make a full and truthful report to his probation officer by the fifth day of every month. The case is therefore remanded to the trial court for entry of a written order that conforms to the oral pronouncement. Appellant need not be present. See Cozart v. State, 823 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED in part for entry of a conformed order. ERVIN, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lakeisha Shayolanda Leggs v. State, 27 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…PER CURIAM. In this Anders appeal, we affirm the appellant’s judgment and sentence, but remand for the trial court to enter a written order specifying the conditions of probation the appellant violated. See Baldwin v. State, 855 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (remanding for entry of a written order revoking probation that conforms to the oral pronouncement in an Anders appeal); see also Petrie v. State, 980 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“In this Anders appeal, we affirm the order r…
-
Nickolas v. State, 66 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…CA 2010) (affirming, in an Anders appeal, the appellant’s judgment and sentence, but remanding with directions that the trial court enter an order specifying the conditions of probation violated). Appellant need not be present. See Baldwin v. State, 855 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (remanding for entry of a written revocation order conforming to the oral pronouncement in an Anders appeal). AFFIRMED and REMANDED. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ„ concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct…
-
Williams v. State, 138 So. 3d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…s appeal, the appellant’s judgment and sentence, but remanding with directions that the trial court enter an order specifying the conditions of probation violated). Appellant need not be present. Nickolas, 66 So. 3d at 1077 (citing Baldwin v. State, 855 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (remanding for entry of a written revocation order conforming to the oral pronouncement in an Anders appeal)). AFFIRMED and REMANDED. ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and OSTERHAUS, JJ„ concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re App. Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2002)
- Burgin v. State, 623 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Cozart v. State, 823 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)