NATHANIEL ASH, 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 held that the sentencing order contained errors requiring correction. Specifically, the order failed to identify the conditions of probation violated and did not conform to the oral pronouncement.
[1] A trial court must specify the condition(s) of probation violated in its written order of revocation.
[2] A written sentencing order must conform to the oral pronouncement made by the court at the sentencing hearing.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNathaniel Ash was convicted of several offenses and was on probation at the time of his arrest. The circuit court revoked his probation and adjudicate…
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 Sentencing Order cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Nathaniel Ash was convicted by a jury for possession of cannabis within 1000 feet of a church with intent to sell, possession of drug paraphernalia, giving false name to a law enforcement officer, resisting arrest with violence, battery on a law enforcement officer, and tampering with physical evidence. At the time of his arrest for the charges, Mr. Ash was on probation. Because of errors in the sentencing order, we reverse and remand with instructions.
Mr. Ash raises four issues on appeal, only two of which have merit. We affirm without comment the circuit court’s denial of the midtrial motion to suppress the cannabis found on or about Mr. Ash’s person. We also affirm without comment the denial of Mr. Ash’s motion for judgment of acquittal. We address the two remaining issues below. Probation Violation and Revocation
Because Mr. Ash was on probation for cases 2004-CF-008199 and 2005-CF-006406 at the time of his arrest, the arrest and subsequent jury conviction could result in a violation of his probation. Although the circuit court revoked his probation and adjudicated him guilty of violating his probation, it failed to identify the specific condition(s) of probation that Mr. Ash had violated. Accordingly, we remand this case and direct the circuit court to enter a written order of revocation for cases 2004-CF-008199 and 2005-CF-006406 specifying the condition(s) Mr. Ash was found to have violated. See Cato v. State, 845 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (remanding with direction to the trial court to enter a formal order of revocation of probation listing the specific conditions that the defendant had violated).
Scrivener’s Error in Written Sentencing Order
Mr. Ash points out, and the State concedes, that the written sentencing order does not comport with the oral pronouncement made at the October 20, 2006, sentencing hearing. Therefore, the circuit court is also directed to issue a new sentencing order that conforms to the court’s oral pronouncement.
Affirmed and remanded with directions.
FULMER and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Daniels v. State, 45 So. 3d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…t the probation violation hearing or in its written order, the specific condition(s) of probation that the defendant had violated. Therefore, we remand for entry of an order that specifies which condition(s) the defendant violated. See Ash v. State, 980 So. 2d 532, 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Burt v. State, 931 So. 2d 1005, 1006 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Cato v. State, 845 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). As to his second point on appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him to 33.675 m…
-
Matzke v. State, 100 So. 3d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…on. But neither the trial court’s oral pronouncement nor its written order identifies which violátions it found Mr. Matzke to have committed. A trial court must identify the specific conditions which it finds a defendant has violated. Ash v. State, 980 So. 2d 532, 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Daniels v. State, 45 So. 3d 922, 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected order specifying the conditions violated. If the trial court finds that Mr. Matzke violated c…
Authorities Cited
- Harris v. State, 845 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Ponce Cato v. State, 845 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)