WILFREDO RAMOS - HADDOCK
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 must enter a written order of probation revocation that specifies the condition(s) violated.
[1] A trial court's written order revoking probation must specify the particular condition or conditions of probation that the probationer violated.
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 erred in entering a written order of revocation of probation that did not specify the condition(s) that Ramos-Haddock violated”
Court's statement of the error requiring reversal and remand
Ramos-Haddock admitted to violating his probation in two consolidated cases. The trial court revoked his probation and imposed sentences, but the writ…
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 Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
WILFREDO RAMOS-HADDOCK, Appellant, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case Nos. 2D18-367 2D18-369
V.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
CONSOLIDATED
Opinion filed November 6, 2019.
Appeals from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Ronald Ficarrotta and Wayne S. Timmerman, Judges.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Wilfredo Ramos-Haddock challenges an order revoking his probation in case numbers 2012-CF-3806 and 2012-CF-10891 after he admitted violating his probation. We affirm the revocation of probation and the sentences without comment.
The State correctly concedes, however, that the trial court erred in entering a written order of revocation of probation that did not specify the condition(s) that Ramos-Haddock violated. See Underwood v. State, 98 So. 3d 745, 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (and cases cited therein). In addition, the amended judgment and sentence in case number 2012-CF-3806 erroneously indicate that he admitted that he had violated condition 5 of his probation. Accordingly, we reverse the order revoking probation in both cases and remand for the trial court to enter a written order of revocation that specifies the condition(s) violated. On remand, the trial court shall also strike the statement in the amended judgment and sentence in case number 2012-CF- 3806 that Ramos-Haddock admitted that he had violated condition 5 of his probation.
Affirmed and remanded with directions.
NORTHCUTT, MORRIS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.