JEFFREY W. SIMPSON, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed probation revocation and 70.5-month sentence for false imprisonment but remanded to correct the written revocation order to match the trial court's oral pronouncement of which probation conditions were violated.
A written probation revocation order must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement of which conditions were violated, and if it does not, the case must be remanded for correction.
[1] A written probation revocation order must be corrected to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement when the two differ regarding which conditions were violated.
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 intelligence“the written order of revocation does not conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement”
Court's explanation for why remand was necessary despite affirming the revocation itself.
Simpson was originally sentenced to two years of probation for false imprisonment and was found to have violated multiple probation conditions at a re…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
Jeffrey W. Simpson appeals an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to 70.5 months in prison. Simpson was originally sentenced to two years of probation for the offense of false imprisonment and was thereafter found to have violated this probation after a hearing. We affirm the revocation of Simpson’s probation and his sentence. However, because the written order of revocation does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement, we remand this case with directions that the revocation order be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.
Simpson argues, and the State correctly concedes, that the order revoking Simpson’s probation must be reversed because it does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement regarding the conditions of probation Simpson was found to have violated. At the revocation hearing, the trial court revoked Simpson’s probation after finding that he violated condition one and condition nine by failing to report to the probation officer as instructed, special condition eight by failing to complete community service hours, special condition twenty-four by contacting the victim of the false imprisonment, and special condition eighteen by failing to complete an anger management program. However, the written revocation order states that Simpson’s probation was revoked for violating six additional conditions. Therefore, we remand this case with directions to the trial court to correct the written revocation order to conform to the oral pronouncement. See West v. State, 1 So.3d 1290, 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
Affirmed; remanded with directions.
ALTENBERND and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.