SEAN WELLS, 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.
Sean Wells appeals the revocation of his probation and thirty-month prison sentence. The appellate court affirmed the revocation but remanded for the trial court to provide written findings explaining why Wells posed a danger to the community and which specific probation condition he violated.
The trial court's revocation of probation is affirmed. However, the case is remanded because the trial court must reduce its oral findings to writing, specifically: (1) the reasons for finding that Wells poses a danger to the community under section 948.06(8)(e), and (2) which specific probation condition Wells violated.
[1] A trial court's order revoking probation will be affirmed if supported by competent, substantial evidence.
[2] When a trial court orally pronounces reasons for finding a defendant, as a violent felony offender of special concern, poses a danger to the community, but fails to provi…
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“where a court orally pronounces a reason, consistent with one or more of the factors listed under section 948.06(8)(e) 1., for its finding that the defendant, as a violent felony offender of special concern, poses a danger to the community, but fails to provide written reasons for its finding, the proper remedy is to affirm the revocation of the defendant's probation, but remand for entry of a written order conforming to the court's oral pronouncement”
Establishes the legal standard for remand when oral findings lack written documentation
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWells was on probation and failed to report in December 2016 and January 2017, violating Condition 1 of his probation. The trial court found Wells qua…
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 Violent Felony Offender Of Special Concern cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Sean Wells, appeals the trial court's order revoking his probation and sentencing him to thirty months in prison. We affirm, but remand for a corrected order.
The trial court orally found Appellant guilty of violating Condition 1 of his probation for failing to report in December 2016 and January 2017. At sentencing, defense counsel conceded that Appellant qualified as a violent felony offender of special concern, and the trial court made the oral pronouncement that Appellant's release posed a danger to the community pursuant to section 948.06(8)(e), Florida Statutes (2016).
On appeal, Appellant argues (1) the finding that he violated his probation was not supported by competent, substantial evidence, and (2) the trial court erred by failing to include its reasons for finding that he posed a danger to the community in its written order.
We affirm the trial court's revocation of Appellant's probation without further discussion. However, the State concedes that remand is appropriate for the trial court to reduce its orally pronounced reasons for finding that Appellant presents a danger to the community to writing. See Bell v. State , 150 So.3d 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ; see also Arnone v. State , 204 So.3d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ("[W]here a court orally pronounces a reason, consistent with one or more of the factors listed under section 948.06(8)(e) 1., for its finding that the defendant, as a violent felony offender of special concern, poses a danger to the community, but fails to provide written reasons for its finding, the proper remedy is to affirm the revocation of the defendant's probation, but remand for entry of a written order conforming to the court's oral pronouncement."). Similarly, we note that although the trial court orally pronounced its finding that Appellant violated probation, the written order revoking probation does not specify which condition Appellant violated. See Brown v. State , 225 So.3d 399, 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). Thus, on remand, the trial court should enter a corrected order with appropriate written findings.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
PALMER, WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Padilla-Padial v. State, 263 So. 3d 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Arnone v. State, 204 So. 3d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Bell v. State, 150 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
- Brown v. State, 225 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)