STANLEY FIORANTINO WILLIAMS, 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.
In this Anders appeal, the court affirmed appellant's judgment and sentence but remanded for the trial court to correct the probation revocation order. The revocation order incorrectly stated that appellant violated probation based on all violations alleged in the State's affidavit, when the trial court's findings actually supported revocation based only on violations occurring on June 23, 2012.
The court affirmed the judgment and sentence but remanded the case for the trial court to correct the revocation order to specify only the June 23, 2012, violations that the trial court actually found supported revocation, rather than all violations alleged in the State's affidavit.
[1] A judgment and sentence will be affirmed in an Anders appeal when the trial court's findings support revocation based on specific violations, even if the revocation order…
[2] A revocation order must accurately reflect the specific conditions of probation that were found to be violated by the trial court.
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“Although the State alleged in its September 18, 2012, affidavit that Appellant violated his probation by committing one new law violation on June 19, 2012, and two new law violations on June 23, 2012, the lower court found that the evidence supported revocation based only on the June 23, 2012, violations.”
Establishes the discrepancy between allegations and findings that required the remand.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Williams was subject to probation. The State alleged in a September 18, 2012, affidavit that appellant violated his probation by committing …
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.
In this Anders 1 appeal, we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence, but remand for the trial court to correct the order revoking his probation. Although the State alleged in its September 18, 2012, affidavit that Appellant violated his probation by committing one new law violation on June 19, 2012, and two new law violations on June 23, 2012, the lower court found that the evidence supported revocation based only on the June 23, 2012, violations. The revocation order provides, however, that Appellant violated the conditions of his probation as alleged in the September 18, 2012, affidavit. We, therefore, remand for the trial court to correct the revocation order. See Nickolas v. State, 66 So.3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (affirming a judgment and sentence in an Anders appeal but remanding for the court to correct revocation order which erroneously based revocation on all five new law violations charged where court only found evidence supported 1 new law violation); Washington v. State, 37 So.3d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming a judgment and sentence in an Anders appeal but remanding for the court to correct a revocation order reflecting the appropriate condition violated); Leggs v. State, 27 So.3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming, in an Anders appeal, the appellant’s judgment and sentence, but remanding with directions that the trial court enter an order specifying the conditions of probation violated). Appellant need not be present. Nickolas, 66 So.3d at 1077 (citing Baldwin v. State, 855 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (remanding for entry of a written revocation order conforming to the oral pronouncement in an Anders appeal)).
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and OSTERHAUS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trey Harris v. State, 229 So. 3d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…riminal activity, respectively, the revocation order states that he violated his probation “[b]y violating Condition 5 by committing new law offenses.” We, therefore, remand for the trial court to correct the revocation order. See Williams v. State, 138 So. 3d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (affirming a judgment and sentence in an Anders appeal, but remanding for the trial court to correct the revocation order to conform to its oral pronouncement as to which alleged violations supported revocation); see also N…
-
Green v. State, 246 So. 3d 1295 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…the trial court to correct the revocation order to conform to its oral pronouncement as to which alleged violations supported revocation and to accurately reflect the offense for which the appellant was on probation); see also Williams v. State, 138 So. 3d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Nickolas v. State, 66 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Appellant need not be present. See Williams, 138 So. 3d at 1103. AFFIRMED and REMANDED. LEWIS, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _________________________…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Cleveland Baldwin v. State, 855 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Lakeisha Shayolanda Leggs v. State, 27 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Washington v. State, 37 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- State v. Hudson, 27 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Jalen Shropshire v. State, 37 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Dawson v. State, 66 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Nickolas v. State, 66 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)