IRA C. KING, III, 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.
Ira King appeals his revocation of probation and sentence on three counts of DUI with serious bodily injury. The court affirms the revocation and sentence but remands because the trial court's written revocation order failed to specify which conditions of probation King violated, as required by law.
No. The court held that when a trial court revokes probation, it is required to render a written order noting the specific conditions of probation that were violated. Although the trial court orally pronounced the violations on the record, the written order must specify those conditions, not merely incorporate them by reference.
[1] A trial court is required to render a written order specifying the conditions of probation that were violated when revoking a defendant's probation.
[2] A written order of probation revocation is insufficient if it fails to specify the conditions of probation that the defendant violated.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If a trial court revokes a defendant's probation, the court is required to render a written order noting the specific conditions of probation that were violated.”
Establishes the mandatory requirement for written orders in probation revocation cases
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2001, King pled no contest to three counts of DUI with serious bodily injury and received a composite sentence of two years' community control foll…
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 Of Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant appeals his revocation of probation, judgment and sentence on three counts of DUI with serious bodily injury, raising four issues for our consideration. We affirm defendant’s judgment and sentence, and write only to address defendant’s argument that the trial court failed to render a proper written order revoking his probation by failing to specifically identify the conditions of probation defendant violated.
By way of background, in 2001, defendant pled no contest to three counts of DUI with serious bodily injury and one count of DUI with property damage. In that same year, defendant received a composite sentence of two years’ community control followed by three years’ probation on his three counts of DUI with serious bodily injury. Defendant received a sentence of “time-served” on his one count of DUI with property damage.
In 2005, the State filed its first violation of probation (VOP) affidavit, alleging that defendant violated three conditions of probation. Shortly thereafter, the State filed *1172two amended VOP affidavits. Defendant ultimately entered an open plea with the trial court, wherein he admitted to violating the conditions of his probation.
Before defendant was sentenced on these violations of probation, the State filed a new VOP affidavit in 2006, alleging that defendant violated the conditions of his probation by committing the crimes of arson and battery. Following a VOP hearing on the new law violations, the trial court orally pronounced that defendant’s probation was revoked and sentenced defendant to 150.3 months in prison on the 2005 and 2006 violations of probation. Defendant then filed the instant appeal.
While his appeal was pending, defendant filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motion, contending, among other things, that the trial court failed to render a written order revoking his probation. The trial court granted defendant’s rule 3.800(b) motion solely on this issue and entered an order of revocation of probation. The revocation order noted that defendant violated his probation in a material respect “for the reasons announced in open court” at his VOP hearing. We now review the sufficiency of this order.
On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the order of revocation of probation because it failed to specify the conditions of probation he violated.1 In response, the State contends that the order was sufficient, as written, because the trial court orally pronounced on the record each condition defendant violated, finding the violations to be willful, substantial, and material, and incorporated them by reference in the written order. Defendant is correct.
If a trial court revokes a defendant’s probation, the court is required to render a written order noting the specific conditions of probation that were violated. See Delisa v. State, 910 So.2d 418, 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Defontes v. State, 889 So.2d 217, 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Anderson v. State, 879 So.2d 688, 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Campbell v. State, 776 So.2d 1036, 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Because the order of revocation of probation here does not specify the conditions defendant violated, we remand for the trial court to amend the order to include the conditions that the court found were violated at defendant’s VOP hearing. We find no merit to defendant’s remaining arguments, and affirm the revocation of his probation, as well as his judgment and sentence.
Affirmed, but Remanded.
MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
Robinson v. State, 74 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…specifying which conditions of the probation agreement were violated. “If a trial court revokes a defendant’s probation, the court is required to render a written order noting the specific conditions of probation that were violated.” King v. State, 46 So. 3d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). If a formal, written order does not exist, it is appropriate to “remand for entry of a proper order.... ” Cato v. State, 845 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Even though the record is clear, a formal, written order spec…
-
Oertel v. State, 82 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…hat Oertel willfully and substantially violated his probation. However, although the trial court orally pronounced the violation of probation, it did not enter a written order. Consequently, we remand for entry of a written order. See King v. State, 46 So. 3d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“If a trial court revokes a defendant’s probation, the court is required to render a written order noting the specific conditions of probation that were violated.”); Robinson v. State, 74 So. 3d 570, 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011…
-
Musto v. State, 174 So. 3d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…nded for entry of a proper order only. We agree with the State. “If a trial court revokes a defendant’s probation, the court is required to render a written order noting the specific [*570] conditions of probation that were violated. King v. State, 46 So. 3d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); see also Wright v. State, 958 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (same rule applies for revocation of community control). Because the order of revocation of community control in the present case does not specify the condi…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2008)
- Campbell v. State, 776 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Anderson v. State, 879 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- A.A.C. v. State, 910 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Defontes v. State, 889 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)