C.M., 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 appellate review of a juvenile delinquency adjudication, C.M. challenged a disposition finding delinquent acts, withholding adjudication, and imposing probation. The court affirmed the substantive finding but remanded to correct a scrivener's error where the written order incorrectly stated indefinite probation rather than the orally pronounced six-month probation.
The court affirmed the delinquency adjudication and disposition finding no harmful reversible error. However, the court held that the discrepancy between oral and written dispositions is not moot and must be corrected to reflect the orally pronounced six-month probation, as this could affect relief in future probation violation proceedings.
[1] A written disposition must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement when a discrepancy exists.
[2] A scrivener's error in a written disposition is not rendered moot by a subsequent probation violation.
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“If a discrepancy exists between the written [disposition] and the oral pronouncement, the written [disposition] must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for correcting discrepancies between oral and written dispositions in Florida juvenile cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC.M. was found to have committed delinquent acts. The trial court orally announced a six-month probationary placement. However, the written order inco…
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
In this Anders1 appeal, C.M. challenges the order finding that he committed delinquent acts, withholding adjudication, and placing him on probation for six months. After a thorough review of the record, we have found no harmful, reversible error and affirm. But we remand for the trial court to. correct a scrivener’s error.
In the original disposition, the court orally announced a six-month probationary placement. However, the written order incorrectly states that C.M. was placed on probation indefinitely until his nineteenth *856birthday. While this appeal was pending, C.M. violated probation and the trial court placed him on probation indefinitely until his nineteenth birthday. The public defender argued that the discrepancy between C.M.’s orally pronounced and written dispositions was moot due to C.M.’s subsequent probation violation. We write to explain that this issue is not moot. In the event that C.M. is granted relief from an appeal of the violation of probation order or in postconviction proceedings, the record should be clear that he was originally placed on six months’ probation. On remand, the trial court shall amend the order to reflect the orally pronounced placement. See W.S.G. v. State, 32 So.3d 725, 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“If a discrepancy exists between the written [disposition] and the oral pronouncement, the written [disposition] must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.” (quoting Guerra v. State, 927 So.2d 248, 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006))).
Affirmed; remanded for correction of scrivener’s error in judgment.
LaROSE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.S. v. State, 205 So. 3d 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…AM. J.S., a juvenile, timely appeals his disposition and continued probation in several case numbers. We affirm in all respects but remand for the trial court to amend the order of probation to conform to the oral pronouncement. See C.M. v. State, 170 So. 3d 855, 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“If a discrepancy exists between the written [disposition] and the oral pronouncement, the written [disposition] must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.” (alterations in original) (quoting W.S.G. v. State, 32…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Guerra v. State, 927 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Khrystopher Wayne Tolley v. State, 32 So. 3d 725 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)