DAVID TIRRELL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Appellate court affirmed probation revocation based on arrest while on probation but reversed the finding of a specific condition violation where the written order contradicted the trial court's oral pronouncement.
A written probation revocation order must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement, and where it does not, that portion must be vacated.
[1] A written probation revocation order must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement at the revocation hearing, and any portion that contradicts the oral pronounceme…
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“A written order of probation revocation must conform to the court's oral pronouncement at a defendant's probation revocation hearing.”
Court citing established precedent requiring conformity between written and oral pronouncements in probation revocation proceedings.
David Tirrell was on probation and was arrested for multiple crimes while on probation. The trial court revoked his probation and sentenced him to 16 …
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 Credit For Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
David' Allan Tirrell appeals from a probation revocation order séntencing him to 16 months in prison. Tirrell argues that the trial court erred in revoking his probation (1) solely on Tirrell’s admission that he was arrested for a number of crimes in violation of the terms of his probation; (2) for according him with less credit for time served than he was entitled to and (3) because the written revocation order did not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement.
We find no merit in Tirrell’s argument that his probation was revoked solely on his admission that he was arrested for a number of crimes while on probation or on his claim that he was not accorded credit for all of the time served to which he was due. We do, however, find that the written revocation order which concludes that Tirrell violated condition 1 of the probation order does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement that Tirrell did not violate that condition and vacate that portion of the order. See Laffitte v. State, 16 So.3d 315, 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“ ‘A written order of probation revocation must conform to the court’s oral pronouncement at a defendant’s probation revocation hearing.’ Salvatierra v. State, 691 So.2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (citing Narvaez v. State, 674 So.2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Snell v. State, 658 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)).”). The order on appeal is, therefore, affirmed in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Narvaez v. State, 674 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Salvatierra v. State, 691 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Laffitte v. State, 16 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Snell v. State, 658 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)