GEOFFERY MOSLEY, 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 appellate court affirmed revocation of community control but remanded to correct the written order to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement that the appellant violated a different condition, not driving with a suspended license.
A written order revoking community control must conform to the oral pronouncements made at the revocation hearing.
[1] A written order revoking community control must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncements made by the trial judge at the revocation hearing.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“a written order of revocation must conform to the oral pronouncements made at the revocation hearing by the trial judge”
Court explaining the requirement that written orders match what was actually said in court
The appellant's community control was revoked after a revocation hearing. The trial court's written order stated the appellant violated condition 5 by…
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.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s revocation of his community control in a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). After reviewing the record, we affirm the revocation of the appellant’s community control in all respects, but the case is remanded with directions for correction of the order in accordance with this opinion.
The trial court’s order revoking appellant’s community control states that the appellant violated condition 5 by driving with a suspended or revoked license. However, in response to the appellant’s timely objection, at the revocation hearing the trial court agreed that the appellant could not have committed this offense because he did not possess any license at all. Since a written order of revocation must conform to the oral pronouncements made at the revocation hearing by the trial judge, Wood v. State, 682 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), the trial court shall, upon remand, strike the finding of violation of condition 5, and correct the order of revocation of community control to accurately reflect the oral pronouncement made at the revocation hearing.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
WOLF, C.J., ERVIN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Livingston H. Wood v. State, 682 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)