GERREN JOSEPH WASHINGTON, 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.
In this Anders appeal, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the revocation of Gerren Joseph Washington's community control and resulting sentence, but remanded the case to correct two scrivener's errors in the revocation order regarding how the violation was documented and which condition number was cited.
The court affirmed the revocation of community control and sentence but remanded to correct two scrivener's errors: (1) to reflect that the trial court found Washington in violation after a hearing rather than that he admitted to the violation, and (2) to correctly identify the violation as being of condition 16 rather than condition 15.
[1] A scrivener's error in a revocation order may be corrected on remand.
[2] A revocation order may be corrected to accurately reflect whether a violation was admitted or found 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“A violation of supervision need not be alleged with the same specificity necessary for an information charging an offense”
Establishes the legal standard that violation of supervision allegations require less specificity than criminal charges
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWashington was placed on community control with conditions including condition 15 (reporting to his officer as directed) and condition 16 (remaining a…
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 Affidavit Of Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
In this Anders 1 appeal, we affirm the revocation of Gerren Joseph Washington’s community control and resulting sentence. We remand only to correct two scrivener’s errors in the revocation order.
First, Washington’s appellate counsel pointed out in her Anders brief that the revocation order incorrectly reflects that Washington admitted to the violation of community control instead of accurately reflecting that the trial court found him to be in violation after an evidentiary hearing.
Second, the affidavit of violation alleges a violation of condition 15 of Washington’s community control for failure to remain at his approved residence. However, condition 16 requires him to remain at his ap*708proved residence; condition 15 requires him to report to his officer as directed. The affidavit of violation described a violation of condition 16 for failing to be at his approved residence but merely cited the wrong condition number. The State presented evidence that proved and the trial court found that Washington was away from his approved residence in violation of his community control, a violation of condition 16.
A violation of supervision need not be alleged with the same specificity necessary for an information charging an offense, see Hollingshead v. State, 846 So.2d 627, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), and even a charging document’s error in citation “shall not be ground for dismissing the count or for a reversal of a conviction based. thereon if the error or omission did not mislead the defendant to the defendant’s prejudice.” McMann v. State, 954 So.2d 90, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (quoting Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.140(d)(1)). It was clear in this case to all parties and the court that the alleged violation was for Washington being away from his approved residence, a violation of condition 16.
Thus, we affirm the revocation of community control and sentence but remand to correct the scrivener’s error in-the revocation order to properly reflect that the trial court found Washington in violation after a hearing. See Mitchell v. State, 190 So.3d 1135, 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). In addition, on remand the trial court shall correct the scrivener’s error to show in the revocation order that Washington was actually found in violation of condition 16.
Affirmed and remanded.
SALARIO and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quijano v. State, 270 So. 3d 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…r to this one we treated an erroneously cited condition number in both the affidavit and the revocation order as a scrivener's error that could be corrected on remand without reversing the substantive portions of the order. See Washington v. State, 228 So. 3d 707, 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (affirming the revocation of community control and remanding to correct a scrivener's error in the revocation order where "[t]he affidavit of violation described a violation of condition 16 for failing to be at his approved r…
-
Sasha Alexandra Brockhaus v. State, 325 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…9. Special Condition 29 is the one that required Brockhaus to successfully complete drug court. Normally, the erroneous citation to a probation condition is considered a scrivener’s error that has been found to be harmless. See Washington v. State, 228 So. 3d 707, 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (affirming the revocation of Washington’s community control and remanding to correct a scrivener’s error in the revocation order where “[t]he 2 affidavit of violation described a violation of condition 16 for failing to be at…
-
Keandre Dashawn Ivory v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…affidavit of violation described the condition as requiring Ivory to abide by a curfew. And it is clear that the parties and the court understood the violation in both cases to be the failure to abide by the curfew imposed. See Washington v. State, 228 So. 3d 707, 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("A violation of supervision need not be alleged with the same specificity necessary for an information charging an offense, and even a charging document's error in citation 'shall not be ground for dismissing the count or fo…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- McMANN v. State, 954 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Hollingshead v. State, 846 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Mitchell v. State, 190 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)