GLEN W. RANDOLPH
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 that revokes probation must issue a written order specifying the particular conditions of probation that were violated.
[1] A trial court revoking probation must issue a written order specifying the particular conditions of probation that the defendant 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“If a trial court revokes a defendant's probation, the court is required to render a written order noting the specific conditions of probation that were violated.”
Court citing King v. State to establish the requirement for specificity in probation revocation orders.
Glen W. Randolph was convicted of armed robbery of a structure and attempted robbery with a firearm. He was also found to have committed a willful and…
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 Attempted Robbery With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
FORST, J.
In this consolidated appeal, Appellant Glen W. Randolph contests his convictions of armed robbery of a structure and attempted robbery with a firearm. With respect to those convictions, we affirm without discussion, concluding the trial court did not err, either in denying Appellant’s motion for a mistrial following an inadvertent statement by one of the State’s witnesses, and in allowing the State to introduce evidence concerning Appellant’s co-defendant.
The appeal also takes issue with the trial court’s disposition in a violation of probation case, wherein the court found Appellant committed a willful and substantial violation of probation. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to make written findings specifying which condition(s) of probation Appellant was found to have violated. The State concedes error on this argument. We have previously held that, “[i]f a trial court revokes a defendant’s probation, the court is required to render a written order noting the specific conditions of probation that were violated.” King v. State, 46 So. 3d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citations omitted). Thus, we remand for the trial court to amend the order to include the condition(s) of probation the court found Appellant violated. Id. We otherwise affirm the revocation of probation and the trial court’s judgment and sentence.
Affirmed in part, remanded in part.
DAMOORGIAN and ARTAU, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
2