CURTIS LEWIS SCOTT, A/K/A TERRY TERRENCE, 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 probation revocation for cocaine offenses but remanded to correct the written revocation order, which erroneously listed two violations of the same condition when only one was addressed at the hearing.
A written probation revocation order must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement, and where the order lists duplicate violations not addressed at the hearing, it must be corrected on remand.
[1] A written probation revocation order must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement 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 intelligenceCurtis Lewis Scott was on probation for cocaine sale and possession. After his arrest for giving a false name to a law enforcement officer, his probat…
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 Conformity To Oral Pronouncement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Curtis Lewis Scott a/k/a Terry Terrence appeals his judgment and sentence for sale or delivery of cocaine and possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver following the revocation of his probation. We affirm the revocation and Scott’s sentence without discussion. However, we remand for correction of the written revocation order. Condition 5 of Scott’s probation requires him to “live without violating the law.” After Scott was arrested for giving a false name to a law enforcement officer, his probation officer filed an affidavit of violation of probation and sought to have Scott’s probation revoked. Two weeks later, Scott was arrested for battery, and his probation officer filed an amended affidavit of violation charging Scott with a second violation of condition 5. At Scott’s revocation hearing, the court addressed only the violation resulting from Scott’s arrest for giving a false name to law enforcement; however, its written revocation order finds Scott in “Violation of Conditions (5), (5).” Both Scott and the State interpret this as an indication that the trial court found Scott in violation of condition 5 twice and that as a result, the revocation order does not conform to the trial court’s oral pro nouncement. Because the written order must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement, we remand with directions to the trial court to enter an order reflecting only one violation of condition 5. See Cockrell v. State, 823 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
Affirmed; remanded for correction.
WHATLEY, NORTHCUTT, and KELLY, JJ., Concur.