JON ROBERT MUSSER, 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.
Jon Robert Musser appealed the revocation of his probation. The court affirmed the revocation based on violations of sex offender treatment and pornography viewing conditions, but reversed and remanded to correct the written order to reflect only the violations actually found by the trial court.
The court affirmed the revocation as supported by violations of the sex offender treatment and pornography viewing conditions, but reversed and remanded to require the trial court to enter a corrected order that reflects only the violations actually found in the oral pronouncement, not all violations alleged in the affidavits.
[1] A trial court's oral pronouncement of findings at a probation revocation hearing controls over a written order that is inconsistent with those findings.
[2] A written order of probation revocation must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement of findings.
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“It is evident from the record that the trial court did not err in revoking Musser's probation based on the violations of conditions (16) and (20) as described by Musser's sex therapist.”
Establishes that the revocation was supported by the evidence and therefore affirmed on those grounds.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMusser was on probation subject to multiple conditions, including prohibitions on new law violations, firearm possession, and pornographic material vi…
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 Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
Jon Robert Musser timely appeals the order revoking his probation. We affirm the revocation. But we reverse and remand for entry of a corrected order because the existing order does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement.
The affidavit of violation of probation, as amended, alleged violations of four conditions: condition (5), prohibiting new law violations; condition (6), prohibiting the possession of firearms; condition (16), requiring active participation and successful completion of sex offender treatment; and condition (20), prohibiting the viewing of pornographic material relevant to Mus-ser’s deviant behavior pattern. With respect to condition (5), the affidavit alleged that Musser committed a new law violation by possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. Therefore, two of the four conditions alleged to have been violated were related to the possession of firearms.
At the revocation hearing, the State provided evidence addressing all four conditions. After argument, the trial judge revoked Musser’s probation. In orally pronouncing his findings, the trial judge noted that the revocation was based upon the testimony of Musser’s sex therapist, who described Musser’s poor participation in sex therapy and his admission to watching pornography after being placed on probation. In revoking Musser’s probation, the judge did not address the firearm conditions, but the order of revocation indicates that Musser violated his probation “as outlined in the affidavits of violation of probation.”
It is evident from the record that the trial court did not err in revoking Musser’s probation based on the violations of conditions (16) and (20) as described by Musser’s sex therapist. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation. But because the order of revocation suggests that Musser committed violations which were not addressed in the court’s factual findings, we reverse and remand for the entry of an order consistent with the court’s oral pronouncement. See Henley v. State, — So.3d -(Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (reversing portion of revocation order which incorporated by reference violations in conflict with oral pronouncement).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
DAVIS and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Valdes v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…328 So. 3d 1115, 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (“Where the trial court’s oral pronouncement and written revocation ---PAGE 4--- order conflict, the written revocation order must be corrected to comport with the oral pronouncement.”); Musser v. State, 108 So. 3d 670, 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“[B]ecause the order of revocation suggests that [Appellant] committed violations which were not addressed in the court’s factual findings, we reverse and remand for the entry of an order consistent with the court’s oral…
-
Miller v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…the trial court made no oral findings regarding condition 6 or the alleged association with others engaged in criminal activity. The trial court shall correct the revocation order on remand to conform to its oral pronouncement. See Musser v. State, 108 So. 3d 670, 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("[B]ecause the order of revocation suggests that Musser committed violations which were not addressed in the court's factual findings, we reverse and remand for the entry of an order consistent with the court's oral pronoun…