RONALD DAVID MENDENHALL, 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 a probation violation judgment and sentence, noting that while the trial court's written revocation order was deficient for failing to specify the violated conditions, the error was not preserved for appeal because the defendant did not object at trial or raise it in a Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion.
A trial court's failure to specify in its written probation revocation order the conditions violated is not preserved for appellate review when the defendant does not object at trial or raise the issue in a Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion.
[1] A trial court's failure to specify in its written probation revocation order the conditions of probation violated is not preserved for appellate review absent an objectio…
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of violating probation. The trial court orally found certain conditions violated but the written revocation order failed to sp…
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 Motion To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the judgment and sentence rendered by the trial court after Appellant’s violation of probation trial because we conclude that the arguments raised by Appellant in this appeal are without merit. We note that the trial court’s written order terminating Appellant’s probation is deficient because it fails to state the conditions of probation that the trial court orally found that Appellant had violated. Long v. State, 886 So.2d 280, 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). However, this error has not been preserved for appellate review because Appellant did not object at trial or raise this specific issue in the Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion that he filed in this case. See Jones v. State, 898 So.2d 209, 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (finding that the trial court’s error in failing to specify in its written revocation order the conditions of probation that it orally found the defendant had violated was properly preserved for review by the defendant’s filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(b)(2)). Lastly, we remind trial courts that the court minutes from trial, listing the conditions of probation orally found by the court to have been violated by a defendant, as was done here, is not a substitute for a proper revocation order because court minutes and the minute book entries are specifically excluded from the definition of a court order. See Fla R. App. P. 9.020(f).
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are affirmed without prejudice to Appellant filing a motion for postconviction relief.
AFFIRMED, without prejudice.
PALMER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simmons v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)
-
Simmons v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)
-
White v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…Appellant’s plea to violating her probation. However, we remand for the entry of a proper written order revoking Appellant’s probation that specifies the conditions of probation that Appellant was found to have violated. See Mendenhall v. State, 233 So. 3d 1288, 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (noting that court minutes listing the conditions of probation orally found by the court to have been violated by a defendant are not a substitute for a proper revocation order because court minutes and the minute book entr…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 898 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Long v. State, 886 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)