CHRISTOPHER ROSENSTEEL, 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.
Appellate court reversed probation revocation because trial court failed to enter written findings specifying which probation conditions were violated, despite oral findings at the evidentiary hearing.
A trial court must enter written findings specifying which conditions of probation were violated when revoking probation.
[1] Trial courts must enter written findings specifying which conditions of probation were violated when revoking probation, not merely oral findings.
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 intelligenceRosensteel was found at an evidentiary hearing to have violated probation by having unsupervised contact with minors and using marijuana. The trial co…
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 Rule 3.800(B)(2) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
Christopher Rosensteel appeals the revocation of his probation. Because the trial court failed to enter proper written findings specifying which conditions of probation Rosensteel was found to have violated and because he preserved this issue by filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), we reverse and remand to the trial court with directions to enter such written findings.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the court orally found that Rosensteel had violated two conditions of his probation. Ro-sensteel violated condition 35 by having unsupervised contact with two children under the age of eighteen and conditions 8 and 10 by using marijuana. The trial court failed to enter written findings specifying which conditions of probation Rosen-steel was found to have violated. See Jelks v. State, 770 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Rosensteel properly preserved the issue for appeal by the filing of a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. Rule 3.800(b)(2) provides that a motion filed pursuant to that rule is deemed denied if the court fails to rule on it within sixty days. The record on appeal confirms that the trial court failed to timely rule on the motion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand only for the trial court to enter such written findings.
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Pearson Price, 958 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…onclusion Because this error cannot be corrected through a direct appeal, for the improper genetic testing requiring a blood draw would have already been completed, the error must be corrected through certiorari proceedings. See State v. Bjorkland, 924 So. 2d 971, 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Pursuant to our constitutional authority to issue a writ of certiorari, Art. V, § 4(3), Fla. Const., we grant the petition, issue the writ, quash the order on review, and remand for further proceedings. SALCINES, J., Concur…
-
State v. LaFAVE, 113 So. 3d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…this case”). Subsequent to Jones and Pettis, we acknowledged that "[cjertiorari is an original proceeding designed to provide extraordinary relief [and] is not intended to provide review when an error can be repaired on appeal.” State v. Bjorkland, 924 So. 2d 971, 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding state could not seek certiorari review of an order when state had the right to repair the error "by pretrial appeal” but failed to file a timely notice of appeal within fifteen days). Also subsequent to Jones and Pe…
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Silva, 214 So. 3d 766 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…07) (“Because this error cannot be corrected through a direct appeal, for the improper genetic testing requiring a blood draw would have already been completed, the error must be corrected through certiorari proceedings.” (citing State v. Bjorkland, 924 So. 2d 971, 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006))). Having certiorari jurisdiction to review the order, we next address whether the order departs from the essential requirements of law. For purposes of cer-tiorari relief, an order departs from the essential requirements of…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Antoine Jelks v. State, 770 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)