JERRY HARVIN, JR., 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 affirmed the revocation of appellant's community control but remanded to correct the written order to reflect revocation based on the original violation report dated March 5, 2003, rather than an amended report filed after appellant's admission.
A trial court may not revoke community control based on a subsequently filed amended violation report when the defendant has admitted to violations in the original report.
[1] A trial court is not permitted to revoke community control based on violations alleged in an amended violation report filed after the defendant has admitted to violations…
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 intelligenceAppellant admitted to violating conditions of community control as set forth in a violation report filed March 5, 2003, and the trial court accepted t…
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 Of Revocation 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 has occurred. We affirm the trial court’s revocation of appellant’s community control and imposition of judgment and sentence. However, the trial court erred in revoking appellant’s community control based on a subsequent amended violation report filed after appellant admitted to violating his community control. Cf. Perkins v. State, 842 So. 2d 275, 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding that the trial court is not permitted to revoke probation based on conduct not charged in the affidavit). Appellant admitted to violating the conditions set forth in the violation report filed March 5, 2003. The trial court accepted the admission on May 8, 2003. The written order of revocation erroneously bases the revocation on the violation report filed May 13, 2003. The record does not show that appellant admitted to committing new violations raised in the May 13, 2003, report or that the state presented a factual basis to revoke probation based on the new violations. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to correct the order of revocation to reflect that revocation was based on the violation report filed on March 5, 2003, not May 13, 2003.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.
DAVIS, BROWNING and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kemp v. State, 135 So. 3d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…oceedings. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to correct the order of revocation to reflect that revocation was based on the failure to comply with the appellant’s curfew and the failure to submit to electronic monitoring. See Harvin v. State, 882 So. 2d 1089, 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (affirming the revocation of probation in an Anders appeal, but remanding for correction of the order to reflect only the violations admitted to as its basis); Narvaez v. State, 674 So. 2d 868, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (notin…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Gillis Watson v. State, 842 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Perkins v. State, 842 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)