KEVIN CREWS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge a written probation revocation order that found violations beyond those admitted orally, and the court remanded to correct the order to reflect only the admitted violation.
Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue the discrepancy between the trial court's oral pronouncement revoking probation based on a single admitted violation and its written order finding multiple violations.
[1] A written probation revocation order that finds violations beyond those admitted by the defendant and pronounced orally by the trial court is erroneous and must be correc…
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 revocation order is erroneous in that it finds petitioner in violation of conditions for which the trial court made no pronouncement of guilt and to which he did not offer an admission”
Court's explanation of why the revocation order was deficient
Crews' probation was revoked based on his admission to violating a single condition through commission of a new law offense, but the trial court's wri…
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
Kevin L. Crews presents a timely claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue the issue that the trial court’s written order revoking probation, finding that petitioner had committed all violations alleged in the violation of probation affidavit, differed from its oral pronouncement, which was based on petitioner’s admission to a violation of a single condition by his commission of a new law offense. We agree with petitioner that the written revocation order is erroneous in that it finds petitioner in violation of conditions for which the trial court made no pronouncement of guilt and to which he did not offer an admission. See, e.g., Kemp v. State, — So.3d - (Fla. 1st *984DCA 2013) (affirming revocation of probation but remanding to correct revocation order to reflect only the violation admitted as its basis). We further conclude that appellate counsel was deficient for failing to pursue this issue.
Petitioner concedes and we agree that this error does not entitle him to reversal of either his conviction or his sentence. However, had this issue been properly pursued on appeal, he would have been entitled to have his revocation order corrected to reflect the basis on which his probation was revoked. Accordingly, we GRANT the petition and REMAND to the lower tribunal with directions to enter an amended revocation order conforming with the oral pronouncement basing the revocation of probation on petitioner’s admission to the violation of condition 5 of his probation.
LEWIS, C.J., and SWANSON, J., concur.
BENTON, J., dissents.