JOHN JOACHIN, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed probation revocation based on sufficient evidence of new criminal offenses but remanded for entry of a written revocation order as required by law.
A trial court must enter a written order of revocation reflecting the basis for probation revocation, even when the court has articulated its reasoning on the record during the hearing.
[1] A trial court must enter a written order of revocation of probation that reflects the basis for revocation, even when the court has articulated its reasoning on the recor…
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Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Joachin's probation was revoked following a full evidentiary hearing in which the trial court detailed its reasoning and identified specific prob…
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 Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
John Joachin appeals from a judgment and sentence following a probation revocation hearing. The trial court revoked Joa-chin’s probation after a full evidentiary hearing in which the trial court articulated its reasoning in some detail (including which conditions of probation Joachin violated). However, the trial court failed to render a written order of revocation. We conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s determination that Joachin violated his probation by committing new criminal offenses. We affirm the judgment and sentence entered upon that revocation.
Nevertheless, we remand for the sole purpose of directing the trial court to enter a written order of revocation, which order shall reflect the basis for the revocation of probation. See Grissom v. State, 819 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); McCloud v. State, 653 So.2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Watts v. State, 688 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). This is not a case like Thomas v. State, 585 So.2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), where the question was whether a defect in the written order of revocation was remedied by the judge’s statements reflected in the transcript. See McCloud, 653 So.2d at 455 n. 2 (“The Thomas court evidently took the view that once the reasons for revocation had been *440stated on the record and transcribed, no useful purpose would be served by taking the additional step of entering a written order embodying the reasons already stated on the record.”). Here, the trial court failed to enter a written order of revocation.
Affirmed and remanded for entry of a written order of revocation of probation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2286 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…evocation of . . . probation.” Brown v. State, 127 So. 3d 831, 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); accord Centano v. State, 880 So. 2d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); McCloud v. State, 653 So. 2d 453, 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); see also, e.g., Joachin v. State, 199 So. 3d 439-40 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Hulse v. State, 170 So. 3d 911, 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Burt v. State, 931 So. 2d 1005, 1006 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Wilcox v. State, 919 So. 2d 609, 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Where a trial court fails to enter a written order o…
-
Zevin Mitchell v. State, 230 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…PER CURIAM. Zevin Mitchell appeals the trial court’s oral revocation of probation and failure to reduce the court’s oral rulings to a written order. We reverse and remand the case to the - trial court to enter such an order. Joachin v. State, 199 So. 3d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). The State acknowledges that reversal and remand for this purpose is required. Entry of an order conforming with the oral rulings at the revocation hearing is a ministerial act, such that Mr. Mitchell need not be present. Revers…
Authorities Cited
- Watts v. State, 688 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- McCLOUD v. State, 653 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Thomas v. State, 585 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Heddie Smith Vereen v. Spears, 819 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Tarius Larvell Grissom v. State, 819 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)