TERRY JAMES TOWNSEND, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed probation revocation but remanded to correct a scrivener's error in the revocation order that incorrectly listed violated probation conditions.
The trial court's revocation of probation is affirmed, but the revocation order must be corrected to reflect only the probation conditions the appellant actually admitted to violating.
[1] A scrivener's error in a probation revocation order that lists conditions not actually admitted to or found violated by the trial court must be corrected on remand.
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Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Townsend's probation was revoked after he admitted to violating special condition (2) as alleged in charges I-V. The trial court's order err…
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 Direct Criminal Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
*1250This direct criminal appeal was brought pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Having reviewed the entire record, we affirm the trial court's revocation of Appellant's probation and the resulting judgment and sentence. However, we remand for correction of a scrivener's error in the Order of Revocation of Probation, which states, inter alia , that Appellant violated conditions of probation (1) and (5) as alleged in charges VI, VII, and VIII, and that Appellant admitted to those violations. The record reflects that Appellant admitted to violating special condition (2) as alleged in charges I-V. It does not reflect that Appellant admitted to violating conditions (1) and (5) as alleged in charges VI, VII, or VIII, nor did the trial court find at the violation of probation hearing that Appellant violated those conditions. The record also does not reflect that the state attempted to demonstrate a basis to revoke as to those conditions. Rather, the inclusion of those conditions in the order of revocation appears to be a scrivener's error. See Kemp v. State , 135 So.3d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). On remand, the Order of Revocation of Probation should be corrected to reflect that the revocation is based on the condition of Appellant's probation that he admitted to violating.
Makar, Osterhaus, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyce v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Kemp v. State, 135 So. 3d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Miles v. State, 135 So. 3d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)