T.M., A JUVENILE, 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.
The court held that a written order specifying violated probation conditions is required when revoking a juvenile's probation.
T.M. was found to have violated probation, but the trial court failed to enter a written order detailing the specific conditions violated. The State 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 Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
T.M. was placed on probation for the delinquent act of petit .theft. Thereafter, a petition was filed, alleging T.M. committed several violations of her probation. A probation violation hearing was held and, following the hearing, the trial court orally pronounced T.M. to have violated her probation, and imposed a new term of probation with conditions. The only issue raised in this appeal is that the trial court failed to enter a written order setting forth what conditions of probation were violated by T.M.
As the State concedes in its answer brief, the law is well-settled: if the trial court revokes a juvenile’s probation, the court is required to render a written order setting forth the conditions of probation that were violated. If no such written order was rendered; it is appropriate to remand the case to the trial court for entry of an appropriate order. See A.T.J.F. v. State, 78 So.3d 57, 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (concluding that “the record contains only disposition orders, so we remand to the trial court for entry of a written order of revocation of probation specifying the conditions appellant was found to have violated”); M.A.L. v. State, 110 So.3d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). See also Burst v. State, 836 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Robinson v. State, 74 So.3d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
The State contends this appeal is moot because the trial court did in fact enter a written order following T.M.’s probation violation hearing. However, the written order-referred to by the State merely imposes a new term of probation and new (or renewed) conditions; it fails to set forth what conditions of the original probation were violated by T.M.
We therefore affirm but remand to the trial court for the sole purpose of rendering a written order specifying the conditions of probation it found were violated by T.M.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Badgers v. State, 267 So. 3d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…an offense as a scrivener's error and remanding for correction). Badgers also correctly points out that the trial court's written revocation order failed to specify the conditions of probation that he was found to have violated. See T.M. v. State, 233 So. 3d 1275, 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("[T]he law is well-settled: if the trial court revokes a juvenile's probation, the court is required to render a written order setting forth the conditions of probation that were violated."). The State concedes that remand…
-
Perez v. Dwyer, 271 So. 3d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
-
D.D. v. State, 271 So. 3d 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Robinson v. State, 74 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Smith Michel v. State, 110 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- A.T.J.F. v. State, 78 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Damion L. Burst v. State, 836 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)