ROLANDO BARRUETA, 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.
Rolando Barrueta appeals his probation revocation and convictions for trafficking and conspiracy to traffic cocaine. The appellate court affirmed the revocation and Count I conviction but reversed the Count II conviction because the probation violation warrant did not allege a violation as to that count, and remanded for entry of a formal written revocation order.
The court affirmed the probation revocation and Count I conviction, but reversed the Count II conviction and revocation because the warrant did not allege a probation violation as to Count II. The court remanded for entry of a formal written order of revocation specifying which allegations Barrueta was found guilty of, including lesser violations.
[1] A trial court errs in revoking probation or imposing a sentence for a violation not alleged in the warrant or affidavit charging the violation.
[2] A trial court must enter a formal written order of revocation of probation specifying the allegations found to be true, including lesser violations, and those dismissed.
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 intelligence“trial court erred in revoking community control where "affidavit and warrant appearing in the record do not charge the substantive violation" for which defendant's probation was revoked”
Establishes the legal principle that probation revocation requires that the warrant allege the specific violation(s) for which revocation is sought.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarrueta was on probation and faced five allegations of probation violation in a warrant. The trial court found him guilty of allegations 1, 3, and 4,…
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, Rolando Barrueta, appeals the revocation of his probation and his judgment and sentence on Count I — trafficking in an amount of 400 grams or more of cocaine, and Count II — conspiracy to traffic in an amount of 400 grams or more of cocaine.
On appeal, Barrueta first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the allegations of probation violation. Second, he avers that the trial court erred in sentencing him on Count II. Third, Barrueta contends that the trial court failed to enter a written order accurately reflecting its findings that he violated his probation. As to this third point, while Barrueta acknowledges that the court’s findings are reflected in the court status sheet,1 he avers that with respect to the first violation charged, the status sheet does not indicate that he was found guilty of only the lesser violation of possession of cocaine in excess of ten grams and not the more serious violation of armed trafficking of cocaine originally alleged in the violation of probation warrant.
Finding no merit to Barrueta’s first argument, we affirm without discussion the revocation of probation and the judgment and sentence on Count I — trafficking in cocaine. However, as to Count II, Barrue-ta is correct that the warrant did not allege a violation of probation as to Count II. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s revocation of probation and his judgment and sentence on Count II — conspiracy to traffic.2 See Baker v. State, 760 So.2d 1115, 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (holding that trial court erred in revoking community control where “affidavit and warrant appearing in the record do not charge the substantive violation” for which defendant’s probation was revoked); see also Howard v. State, 888 So.2d 879, 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Nagel v. State, 758 So.2d 1206, 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We also remand with directions for the trial court to enter a formal written order of revocation of probation in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.995, specifying which allegations Barrueta was found guilty of, including lesser violations, and which allegations were dismissed. See Green v. State, 23 So.3d 820, 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (affirming revocation, but remanding for entry of a written order of revocation).
Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Remanded.
MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Green v. State, 23 So. 3d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Connor v. State, 758 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Baker v. State, 760 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Nagel v. State, 758 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)