DEXTER A. MITCHELL, 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.
The court affirmed the revocation of Mitchell's probation based on willful and substantial violation found by greater weight of evidence, but remanded to correct a scrivener's error in the written order that incorrectly stated an admission where none existed.
A probation revocation order must be corrected when the written order contradicts the trial court's oral pronouncement by falsely indicating an admission of violation.
[1] A written probation revocation order that contradicts the trial court's oral pronouncement must be remanded for correction to conform the written order to the oral pronou…
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 intelligenceMitchell was found in violation of his probation conditions after a revocation hearing where testimony and evidence were presented. The circuit court …
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 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), appeal, Dexter Mitchell challenges the revocation of his probation. We affirm in all respects but remand for correction of a scrivener’s error that was raised by Mr. Mitchell’s appellate counsel in her thorough Anders brief.
Our careful review of the record reveals that the circuit court found Mr. Mitchell in violation of the conditions of his probation after a revocation hearing, where testimony and other evidence were provided. At the conclusion of the revocation hearing, the circuit court' orally pronounced that Mr. Mitchell willfully and substantially violated the conditions of his probation by the greater weight of the evidence. The written revocation order, however, incorrectly indicates that Mr. Mitchell admitted to violating the terms of his probation, where no such admission existed. Because the written revocation order varies from the oral pronouncement, we remand to the circuit court with directions to conform the written revocation order with its oral pronouncement. We therefore remand with instructions for the circuit court to correct the scrivener’s error in the order of revocation of probation. See Rivera v. State, 117 So.3d 449, 449-50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). We .affirm in all other respects.
Affirmed and remanded with instructions to correct the order of revocation of probation. • ,
SILBERMAN and MORRIS, JJ., Concur. ■
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gerren Joseph Washington v. State, 228 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…16. Thus, we affirm the revocation of community control and sentence but remand to correct the scrivener’s error in-the revocation order to properly reflect that the trial court found Washington in violation after a hearing. See Mitchell v. State, 190 So. 3d 1135, 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). In addition, on remand the trial court shall correct the scrivener’s error to show in the revocation order that Washington was actually found in violation of condition 16. Affirmed and remanded. SALARIO and ROTHSTEIN-YOUA…
-
Boyles v. Dillard's Inc., 199 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…edical doctor was qualified to opine that a child of the victim’s height and weight could have sustained certain types of brain injuries by falling out of a day bed and that shaking alone could not have caused such injuries). See also Maines v. Fox, 190 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Dr. Ipser’s testimony below was well within these parameters; he did not render inadmissible opinions that required medical expertise, and he didn’t even render admissible opinions as to the causal mechanisms of the sorts of in…
-
Eskra v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…Whereas the order says that Mr. Eskra admitted to violating his probation, he was in fact found in violation following a contested evidentiary hearing. We remand for the trial court to correct the scrivener's error. See, e.g., Mitchell v. State, 190 So. 3d 1135, 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (affirming revocation of probation in Anders appeal but remanding for correction of scrivener's error where revocation order "incorrectly indicates that Mr. Mitchell admitted to violating the terms of his probation, where no…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Alton Jamal Rivera v. State, 117 So. 3d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)