JARROD RAY ROSS, 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.
Jarrod Ray Ross appealed his judgments and sentences in six 2014 criminal cases and the revocation of his probation in two 2012 cases. The court affirmed the underlying convictions and probation revocation but remanded for correction of the revocation order to accurately reflect which probation conditions were violated, consistent with the trial court's oral pronouncement.
The court affirmed Ross's judgments, sentences, and probation revocation on the merits but remanded because the written revocation order failed to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement. The order should have reflected that Ross violated condition (5) as alleged in counts VIII-XII and XIV, not conditions VII-XIV as written.
[1] A written order revoking community control must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement.
[2] An insufficient written order revoking probation or community control does not constitute fundamental error that can be corrected on direct appeal if the defendant had an…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the trial court stated at the sentencing hearing that Ross was not being found guilty of the new law offenses that were dismissed by the State, which correspond to alleged violations VI, VII, and XIII”
Establishes the discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written order regarding which violations were found
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoss was convicted in six 2014 cases and subject to probation revocation in two 2012 cases. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found Ross viol…
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
Jarrod Ray Ross appeals his judgments and sentences in six 2014 cases and the order revoking his probation in two 2012 cases based on the new law offenses in the 2014 cases. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). After our independent review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm Ross’s judgments and sentences and the revocation of his probation. However, for the reasons that follow, we remand for the trial court to correct the *1150revocation order to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement of the conditions violated by Ross. See Nickolas v. State, 66 So.3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (affirming Anders appeal but remanding for correction of written order of revocation of probation to conform to the oral pronouncement of the conditions violated).
The revocation order states that Ross was found guilty of violating “conditions VII-XIV,” but the trial court stated at the sentencing hearing that Ross was not being found guilty of the new law offenses that were dismissed by the State, which correspond to alleged violations VI, VII, and XIII. Additionally, the “conditions” listed by the trial court are actually counts in the second amended affidavit of violation of probation, all of which were alleged to be violations of standard condition of probation number (5) requiring Ross ¡to “live without violating any law.”
Accordingly, on remand, the trial court shall correct the revocation order to conform to the oral pronouncement and reflect that Ross was found guilty of violating condition (5), as alleged in counts VIII-XII and XIV of the second amended affidavit of violation of probation. Ross need not be present for this ministerial act. See id.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED for entry of corrected order.
WETHERELL, BILBREY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Castro v. State, 275 So. 3d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Dawson v. State, 66 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Nickolas v. State, 66 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)