KRYSTAL MARIN, 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 Marin's probation revocation judgment and sentences but remanded for correction of scrivener's errors in the amended revocation orders, which failed to list all conditions of probation that Marin admitted violating.
A trial court must correct scrivener's errors in probation revocation orders to accurately reflect all conditions of probation that a defendant admitted to violating.
[1] Trial courts must correct scrivener's errors in probation revocation orders to accurately reflect all conditions of probation admitted to by the defendant.
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 intelligenceKrystal Marin was subject to probation revocation orders entered on February 9 and 15, 2016, which initially failed to specify the conditions violated…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(B)(2) cases and more on FLexlaw
In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm Krystal Marin’s judgment and sentences but remand for the trial court to correct scrivener’s errors on the amended probation revocation orders. On February 9 and 15, 2016, the trial court entered probation revocation orders but failed to specify the conditions of probation violated. During the pendency of this appeal, Marin filed a motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), requesting that the trial court amend the revocation orders to reflect the conditions violated. The trial court granted Marin’s motion and directed the clerk to enter amended revocation orders reflecting that Marin admitted to violating conditions one, three, five, seven, and eleven. While the amended orders entered on June 15, 2016, state that Marin violated *848conditions three, five, seven, and eleven, they fail to list condition one. We therefore remand for entry of corrected revocation orders which accurately reflect the conditions of probation Marin admitted to violating. See Margolis v. State, 148 So.3d 532, 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
Affirmed; remanded with directions.
CRENSHAW and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Harrison Bradley Margolis v. State, 148 So. 3d 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)