L.D., 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 written disposition order must be consistent with the trial court's oral pronouncement and must specify violated probation conditions.
[1] A written disposition order must be consistent with the court's oral pronouncement.
[2] A trial court must correct a written disposition order to accurately reflect its oral pronouncement regarding the duration of probation.
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 intelligenceL.D. challenged disposition orders adjudicating her delinquent and finding her guilty of battery on a school employee. The written disposition order c…
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
In this consolidated appeal, L.D. challenges a disposition order adjudicating her delinquent for resisting or opposing an officer in circuit court case number 11-CJ-2722, and a disposition order finding her guilty of battery on a school employee and revoking her probation in circuit court case number 08-CJ-3491. We affirm without discussion her adjudication and the disposition order in case number 11-CJ-2722. However, we agree with L.D., and the State properly concedes, that the disposition order in case number 08-CJ-3491 must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
The disposition order in case number 08-CJ-3491 directs that L.D. be continued on probation for a term of five years. At the revocation hearing, the court pronounced a maximum period of supervision not to exceed five years or L.D.’s nineteenth birthday. Because a trial court’s written disposition must be consistent with its oral pronouncement, we reverse the disposition order and remand for entry of a corrected order that accurately reflects the court’s oral pronouncement. See N.L. v. State, 4 So.3d 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
The disposition order also reflects that L.D.’s curfew is during daytime rather than nighttime hours (6:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m.; 6:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.). At the revocation hearing, the court stated, “curfew is 9 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, 10 p.m. Friday and Saturday. You have permission to leave your residence in the morning at 6:00 each morning to go to work or to go to school.” On remand, the court shall correct the written disposition order to reflect the court’s oral pronouncement. See id.
Finally, the court erred by not entering a written revocation order specifying the conditions of probation L.D. violated. See Greene v. State, 919 So.2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Thus, upon remand, we direct the court to enter such an order.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
DAVIS, J., and PETERS, R. TIMOTHY, Associate Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R. H. v. State, 234 So. 3d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Greene v. State, 919 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- N.L. v. State, 4 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)