THOMAS DOUGLAS EDWARDS, 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.
Thomas Douglas Edwards appeals the revocation of his sex offender probation for unlawful sexual activity with a minor and his resulting 71.7-month prison sentence. The court affirmed both the revocation and sentence but remanded for correction of scrivener's errors in the written revocation order.
The court affirmed the revocation of probation and the 71.7-month sentence but remanded for correction of the written revocation order, which should reflect that Edwards was found guilty of a violation of condition nine after an evidentiary hearing rather than stating he admitted to a violation of condition five.
[1] A court may affirm a revocation of sex offender probation and the resulting prison sentence while remanding for correction of scrivener's errors in the written order.
[2] A revocation order must accurately reflect whether a defendant admitted to a violation or was found in violation after an evidentiary hearing.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“instead of providing that Edwards admitted to a violation of condition five, the revocation order should reflect that after an evidentiary hearing, Edwards was found guilty of a violation of condition nine”
Establishes the core holding regarding what the corrected revocation order must state to accurately reflect Edwards' contested admission and the trial court's findings.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdwards was on sex offender probation for unlawful sexual activity with a minor. A revocation proceeding was held where Edwards admitted to a technica…
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 Anders Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), Thomas Douglas Edwards appeals the revocation of his sex offender probation for the offense of un*124lawful sexual activity with a minor and the resulting 71.7-month prison sentence. We affirm both the revocation and the sentence without further comment. However, we must remand for correction of scrivener’s errors.
After sentencing, Edwards filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) on the basis that the revocation order incorrectly stated (1) that Edwards admitted to the violation, (2) that Edwards violated condition five (rather than the charged condition nine), and (3) that Edwards was sentenced to 81.825 months in prison. The trial court granted the motion and instructed the Florida Department of Corrections and the clerk of the circuit court to issue a new revocation order reflecting the trial court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing. But while the amended revocation order correctly lists Edwards’ 71.7-month prison sentence, it still states—incorrectly—that Edwards admitted to a violation of condition five. Edwards admitted to a technical violation of condition nine, but he contested the substantial nature of the violation. Thus, instead of providing that Edwards admitted to a violation of condition five, the revocation order should reflect that after an evidentiary hearing, Edwards was found guilty of a violation of condition nine. Accordingly, we remand for entry of a corrected written order of revocation. See Reames v. State, 171 So.3d 770, 770-71 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (affirming revocation but remanding for correction of scrivener’s errors where corrected orders still incorrectly reflected that appellant admitted to violations one and sixteen where appellant had actually contested the violations and where trial court only found him in violation of condition one); Riley v. State, 838 So.2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (affirming revocation but remanding for correction of revocation order which incorrectly stated that appellant admitted to violation when he was actually found in violation after an evidentiary hearing).
Affirmed but remanded for correction of the written order of revocation of sex offender probation.
KELLY and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Potter v. California, 388 U.S. 924 (U.S. 1967)
- Tiwayne Heard v. State, 838 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Reames v. State, 171 So. 3d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)