TODD J. HART
v.
STATE
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.
When an oral pronouncement of probation revocation conflicts with the written order, the oral pronouncement controls, and the written order must be corrected to reflect the trial court's oral findings.
[1] Where an oral pronouncement of probation revocation conflicts with the written order, the oral pronouncement controls and the written order must be corrected to reflect t…
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 intelligence“Where the oral pronouncement of revocation conflicts with the written order, the oral pronouncement controls.”
Court explaining the controlling authority for the required correction
Hart had an evidentiary hearing on probation violation allegations. The trial court orally found Hart violated his probation by failing to report, fai…
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 Written Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. We affirm the revocation of Appellant’s probation. However, because the order of revocation does not accurately reflect the trial court’s oral findings, we remand so that the order can be corrected.
An evidentiary hearing was held with regard to allegations that Appellant violated his probation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found and orally announced that
Appellant violated his probation by failing to report to his officer, failing to complete substance abuse treatment, drinking alcohol heavily, and committing home-invasion robbery as well as resisting police without violence. The court found the violations to be willful, material, and substantial.
The court’s written order correctly stated that Appellant violated certain numbered conditions of his probation that corresponded with failing to report to his probation officer and failing to live without violating any law. The written order also noted that the revocation of Appellant’s probation was, in part, for his failure to notify his probation officer of a change in residence or employment; however, the court made no such oral pronouncement. Additionally, the written order failed to include the trial court’s oral findings that Appellant violated his probation by drinking heavily and not completing his substance abuse treatment. Where the oral pronouncement of revocation conflicts with the written order, the oral pronouncement controls. Thompson v. State, 965 So. 2d 1250,
1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (citing Cockrell v. State, 823 So. 2d 322, 323 (Fla. 2d DCA
2002)). Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Appellant’s probation and the resulting sentence, but reverse for entry of a corrected order of revocation that accurately reflects the oral findings of the trial court. See Desue v. State, 605 So. 2d 933, 935 (Fla. 1st DCA
1992).
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF CORRECTED ORDER. WALLIS, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Desue v. State, 605 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Aaron v. Thompson, 965 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Cockrell v. State, 823 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)