JAMES LEE NAILS, 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 appellant's convictions and probation revocation, but remanded to strike an unsupported reference to Condition (10) from the written revocation order.
A probation revocation order must be corrected to remove references to conditions not argued or supported by evidence at the revocation hearing.
[1] A probation revocation order must be corrected to remove references to conditions of probation that were not argued by the State and for which no evidence was presented a…
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 was convicted of crimes in Case No. 1D04-319 and subsequently had his probation revoked. The trial court's written revocation order referenc…
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 Scrivener'S Error cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
We affirm without additional comment Appellant’s convictions and sentences in Case No. 1D04-319. In Case No. 1D04-322, Appellant challenges the final order revoking his probation. Competent substantial evidence in the record established that Appellant violated Condition (5) of his terms of probation by committing the crimes for which he was convicted in Case No. 1D04-319.
We affirm the probation revocation order and remand to the trial court with instructions to strike the reference to Condition (10) in the written revocation order. See McCloud v. State, 765 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The transcript of the revocation hearing indicates that the State elected not to argue a violation of Condition (10), but to focus solely on Condition (5), to which the trial court orally agreed. No evidence was offered relating to an alleged violation of Condition (10). Appellant need not be present for the correction of this scrivener’s error. See Jones v. State, 390 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
We AFFIRM the convictions and sentences in Case No. 1D04-319 and the probation revocation order in Case No. 1D04-322 and REMAND with instructions to the trial court to strike the reference to Condition (10) in the written revocation order. WOLF, C.J., and DAVIS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McCLOUD v. State, 765 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Jones v. State, 390 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York v. Scott, 390 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)