ROBIN CHRISTOPHER BUTLER, DOC # 528969, 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.
Robin Butler appeals the revocation of his probation in two cases and the judgment and sentences from a jury trial conviction in a third case. The court affirmed the conviction and the probation revocation but remanded for correction of procedural errors in the revocation order, including failure to specify which probation conditions were violated and entry of unauthorized duplicate judgments.
The court affirmed the conviction and sentences in case 2014-CF-003581 and affirmed the revocation of probation itself, but reversed and remanded the probation revocation orders in cases 2011CF-009406 and 2012CF-003342 because they contained unauthorized duplicate judgments and failed to adequately specify which probation conditions were violated.
[1] A trial court's order revoking probation must clearly state which conditions of probation were violated and in what material respect.
[2] A trial court's finding that a defendant willfully and substantially violated one condition of probation is sufficient to support revocation, even if other alleged techni…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Obviously, these comments do not explain which conditions of probation the trial court found Mr. Butler to have violated or in what material respect those conditions were violated.”
Establishes the primary deficiency in the revocation order—lack of specificity regarding violated conditions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobin Butler was on probation in case numbers 2011CF-009406 and 2012CF-003342. He was charged with a new law violation (condition five violation) and …
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 Appeal From Judgment And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Robin C. Butler challenges the revocation of his probation in circuit court case numbers 2011CF-009406 and 2012CF-003342 and the judgment and sentences imposed following a jury trial in circuit court case number 2014-CF-003581. Mr. Butler’s appellate counsel filed this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct, 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and In re Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d 149 (Fla.1991). Appellate counsel suggests review of Mr. Butler’s motions to suppress evidence and for judgment of acquittal in case number 2014-CF-003581 and of the sentences imposed in all three cases. Mr. Butler also filed a pro se brief1 in which he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence in case number 2014-CF-003581.
After a full and independent review of the record, and after considering the arguments raised in Mr. Butler’s pro se brief, we affirm the judgment and sentences imposed in case number 2014-CF-003581 without comment. We also affirm the revocation of Mr. Butler’s probation in case numbers 2011CF-009406 and 2012CF-003342, but we remand for the correction of several errors with regard to the revocation of Mr. Butler’s probation that are apparent on the face of the record.
First, we address several concerns with the order revoking Mr. Butler’s probation. That order states:
The defendant has not properly conducted himself and violated the conditions of Probation in a material respect by
Admits VOP
Waive OS COS
Deft found to be in Violation
New and OS Money due 20 days from release
5 years FSP, to be given credit for all time served.
Obviously, these comments do not explain which conditions of probation the trial court found Mr. Butler to have violated or in what material respect those conditions were violated. Moreover, other than the trial court’s express finding that Mr. Butler had willfully and substantially violated condition five (the new law violation), we can find no reference to any findings with respect to the other (technical) violations alleged.2 We also note that Mr. Butler did not admit to the alleged violation(s), so the comment, “Admits VOP” appears to be in conflict with the record.
Second, the trial court entered new judgments in case numbers 2011CF-009406 and 2012CF-003342. Duplicative adjudications of guilt after revocation of probation or community control are superfluous, are unauthorized, and can cause undue confusion in future proceedings. See Pierce v. State, 150 So.3d 1207, 1208-09 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Jackson v. State, *114956 So.3d 65, 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Dawkins v. State, 936 So.2d 710, 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
[T]he circuit court must enter a judgment on a violation of probation “unless [the defendant] has previously been adjudged guilty.” See § 948.06(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2010) (emphasis added). Thus, the circuit court only enters a judgment on a violation of probation in those instances when it withheld an adjudication of guilt, i.e., withheld judgment, at the time it originally imposed probation.
Jackson, 56 So.3d at 67 (Altenbernd, J., concurring).
Because we conclude that the trial court would have revoked Mr. Butler’s probation based solely on the violation of condition five, we affirm the revocation of probation and the resulting sentences in case numbers 2011CF-009406 and 2012CF-003342. We reverse the unauthorized judgments and order of revocation of probation in ease numbers 2011CF-009406 and 2012CF-003342, and we remand for entry of an order of revocation that comports with the trial court’s oral pronouncements and sets forth the condition(s) of probation Mr. Butler was determined to have violated. See Smith v. State, 940 So.2d 530, 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Cato v. State, 845 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The judgment and sentences imposed in case number 2014-CF-003581 are affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
VILLANTI, C.J., and LUCAS, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schaufler v. State, 255 So. 3d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…e March 2017 revocation hearing that it should not re-adjudicate Schaufler guilty of the original offenses because it had already adjudicated him guilty of those offenses in May 2005 when originally imposing - 2 - probation, see Butler v. State, 195 So. 3d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ("Duplicative adjudications of guilt after revocation of probation or community control are superfluous, are unauthorized, and can cause undue confusion in future proceedings."), the record on appeal nevertheless includes…
-
Kadarian Daime Freeman v. State, 225 So. 3d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…d. Entering those same judgments a second time in conjunction with the entry of the new written sentences is an error, correctable in an Anders proceeding, that requires the reversal of the new and superfluous written judgments. See Butler v. State, 195 So. 3d 1147, 1148-49 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), Second, the written order of revocation in the 2012 cases does not specify the conditions of probation that he admitted to violating, as it is required.to do. See Cato v. State, 845 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). F…
-
Oree Deandre West v. State, 232 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…entered new judgments in 2012-CF-8004 and 2012-CF-8722. “Dupli-cative adjudications of guilt after revocation of probation or community control are superfluous, are unauthorized, and can cause undue confusion in future proceedings.” Butler v. State, 195 So. 3d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); see also Pierce v. State, 150 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Thus, we reverse the unauthorized judgments. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. KELLY, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- In re App. Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991)
- Terry v. Dep't OF Corr., 936 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Harris v. State, 845 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Ponce Cato v. State, 845 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Jackson v. State, 56 So. 3d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Pierce v. State, 150 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Pisces Antwain Smith v. State, 940 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)