MARTIN
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.
A trial court's written order revoking probation must conform to the court's oral pronouncements at the revocation hearing, and when it includes grounds that were orally dismissed, the order must be corrected on remand.
[1] A written order revoking probation must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncements at the revocation hearing, and when the written order includes grounds that were…
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“The trial court's written order revoking appellant's probation does not conform to the court's oral pronouncements.”
Citation to Jones v. State establishing the principle that written revocation orders must match oral pronouncements
After a probation revocation hearing, the trial court orally found that the state did not prove Martin violated his probation by failing to make effor…
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 Probation Violation Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 9, 2018. ________________ No. 3D17-560 Lower Tribunal No. 05-36013 ________________ Justis Martin, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jason Bloch and Monica Gordo, Judges. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Joanne Diez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and LUCK, JJ.
ON CONFESSION OF ERROR
PER CURIAM.
After a revocation of probation hearing, the trial court found that the state did not prove that defendant Justis Martin violated his probation by making no efforts to complete his high school equivalency diploma (GED). The written order of revocation of probation, however, included this as one of the grounds for revoking Martin’s probation. We agree with the state’s confession of error and remand for correction of the order of revocation of probation. See Jones v. State, 686 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“The trial court’s written order revoking appellant’s probation does not conform to the court's oral pronouncements. At the revocation hearing the court orally dismissed the allegations of paragraphs two, four, and five of the affidavit of probation violation. The written revocation order, however, finds appellant guilty of the probation violations alleged in those paragraphs. We remand this case so that the order may be corrected to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncements.”). Martin need not be present for this purpose. Id. (“Appellant need not be present for this purpose.”). We affirm the order of revocation of probation in all other respects. Reversed and remanded with instructions. 2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 686 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Duncan v. State, 686 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)