CLARK
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 probation revocation may be affirmed even when the written revocation order does not match the trial court's oral pronouncement, but the trial court must correct the written order on remand to accurately specify the actual violations found.
[1] A written revocation order must conform to the oral pronouncement made at the hearing.
[2] A revocation order is legally insufficient if it purports to find violations that were not tried or alleged.
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Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClark's probation was revoked. The trial court orally found a violation of only condition three, but the written revocation order indicated violations…
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 Anders V. California cases and more on FLexlaw
July 10, 2019 PER CURIAM.
In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we affirm the revocation of Appellant’s probation and the resulting judgment and sentence. We note, however, that the written revocation order does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement in that it indicates Appellant violated conditions three and five of his probation, when the court found only a violation of condition three. On remand, the court should enter a corrected order accurately specifying the basis for the revocation. See Wilkerson v. State, 82 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).
AFFIRMED and REMANDED with directions.
RAY, C.J., and WETHERELL and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- W.T. v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities, 82 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Wilkerson v. State, 82 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)