AUBREY WASHINGTON, 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.
Court affirmed probation revocation but remanded to correct scrivener's error identifying the violated condition as condition four when the trial court actually found violation of condition five (living without violating the law).
A probation revocation order containing a scrivener's error identifying the wrong condition violated may be affirmed and remanded for correction where the trial court's oral pronouncements clearly establish which condition was actually violated.
[1] A scrivener's error in a probation revocation order identifying the wrong condition violated does not require reversal when the trial court's oral pronouncements and the…
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 intelligenceWashington was on probation with conditions including not possessing firearms (condition four) and living without violating the law (condition five). …
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 Anders Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm the judgment and sentence but remand for correction of an apparent scrivener’s error on the order revoking Appellant’s probation. The order revoking Appellant’s probation states that the court found Appellant in violation of condition four of his probation. The Order of Probation provides that condition four is to “not possess, carry[,] or own any firearm or weapon, unless authorized by the court.” This condition was never at issue, and the trial court made no oral pronouncements that Appellant possessed, carried, or owned any firearms or weapons. Rather, the trial court orally pronounced that Appellant violated his probation by possessing marijuana and driving while his license was suspended or revoked, as a habitual offender. This violation relates to the condition requiring him to “live without violating the law.” According to the Order of Probation, this condition was number five.
Based on the trial court’s oral pronouncements and the substantive requirements of conditions four and five, it is clear that the notation that Appellant violated condition four was merely a scrivener’s error. For this reason, we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence but remand the case to the trial court for correction of the order revoking probation to reflect that Appellant was found guilty of violating the condition requiring him to “live without violating the law.”
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
WOLF, LEWIS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Rashuan Devon King v. State, 201 So. 3d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
-
Nickolas v. State, 66 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
-
Williams v. State, 138 So. 3d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)