JAMES J. MATZKE, 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.
The court held that a trial court must identify specific conditions of probation violated by a defendant when revoking probation.
The trial court revoked Mr. Matzke's probation after a hearing, finding sufficient evidence of violations. However, neither the oral pronouncement nor…
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 Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Matzke raises two issues on appeal in this challenge of his revocation of probation. Regarding the first issue, an alleged Nelson1 violation, we find no reversible error and affirm without further comment. However, we reverse on the second issue, the trial court’s failure to make all necessary findings for a revocation of probation, and remand for further proceedings.2
The State charged Mr. Matzke with four violations of the conditions of his probation.3 The trial court revoked Mr. Matz-ke’s probation after a hearing, finding that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate a violation. But neither the trial court’s oral pronouncement nor its written order identifies which violátions it found Mr. Matzke to have committed.
A trial court must identify the specific conditions which it finds a defendant has violated. Ash v. State, 980 So.2d 532, 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Daniels v. State, 45 So.3d 922, 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected order specifying the conditions violated. If the trial court finds that Mr. Matzke violated condition four, it shall specify which new law offenses Mr. Matzke committed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
WALLACE and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Daniels v. State, 45 So. 3d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- ASH v. State, 980 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)