DONTEA LEWIS, 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 sentence but remanded for entry of a corrected order specifying the probation conditions violated, as the original order erroneously reflected admission rather than a finding of guilt after evidentiary hearing.
A probation revocation order must specify which conditions of probation were violated and must accurately reflect whether the violation was found after an evidentiary hearing or by admission.
[1] A probation revocation order must specify which conditions of probation were violated and must accurately reflect the trial court's factual findings regarding whether 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 intelligence“the revocation order erroneously reflects that Mr. Lewis admitted to the violation. In fact, the record establishes that the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and found Mr. Lewis guilty of violating the terms of his probation”
Court's explanation of the error in the original revocation order
Mr. Lewis's probation was revoked based on allegations in an amended affidavit that he committed a new crime. The trial court held an evidentiary hear…
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 Ministerial Act cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the appealed revocation of probation and sentence, although the revocation order erroneously reflects that Mr. Lewis admitted to the violation. In fact, the record establishes that the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and found Mr. Lewis guilty of violating the terms of his probation by committing a new crime, as alleged in the amended affidavit with which the revocation proceedings began.
The written revocation order fails to specify which condition(s) of probation Mr. Lewis was found to have violated. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to enter a corrected revocation order reflecting that Mr. Lewis was tried and found guilty of violating probation and specifying the condition(s) of probation violated. See Enno v. State, 59 So.3d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (remanding for entry of a corrected revocation order reflecting that the appellant was tried and found guilty of violating community control when the judgment and revocation order erroneously reflected that the appellant admitted the violations); Leggs v. State, 27 So.3d 155, 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“In this Anders appeal, we affirm the appellant’s judgment and sentence, but remand for the trial court to enter a written order specifying the conditions of probation the appellant violated.”). *969As entry of the corrected order is merely a ministerial act on this record, appellant need not be present. See Findley v. State, 63 So.3d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
BENTON, C.J., CLARK, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lakeisha Shayolanda Leggs v. State, 27 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- State v. Hudson, 27 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Enno v. State, 59 So. 3d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Ervin James Findley v. State, 63 So. 3d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Miracle Sanders v. State, 63 So. 3d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)