HOWARD LIUTENANT MARSHALL
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's oral pronouncement of probation violations during a hearing does not satisfy the requirement that an order revoking probation must identify in writing the specific conditions violated.
[1] An order revoking a defendant's probation must identify in writing the specific conditions of probation that the court found to have been violated; an oral pronouncement…
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“An order revoking probation must state in writing the conditions the trial court found a defendant to have violated.”
Court explaining the mandatory requirement for probation revocation orders
Marshall pled guilty and received 365 days jail followed by two years drug offender probation. He was charged with violating probation by using cocain…
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 Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
HOWARD LIUTENANT MARSHALL,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D22-2623 LT Case No. 2020-CF-1184-A
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee. ________________________________/
Opinion filed April 21, 2023
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Melissa Souto, Judge.
Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Andrew Mich, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Roberts J. Bradford, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
SOUD, J.
In this Anders1 appeal, Appellant Howard Marshall appeals his judgment and sentence following his violation of probation. We affirm.
However, we remand this matter to the trial court for entry of a written order identifying the conditions of probation that the court found Marshall violated.
In his underlying case, Marshall entered a plea of guilty with a negotiated sentence of 365 days in jail followed by two years drug offender probation. Marshall was alleged to have violated his probation by, inter alia,
(i) using intoxicants to excess and possessing drugs or narcotics not prescribed by a physician, and (ii) failing to report to probation. Following hearing, the trial court found Marshall willfully violated these material conditions of probation by testing positive for cocaine and failing to report to probation in August 2022. As a result, the trial court revoked Marshall’s probation and sentenced him to forty-nine months in prison.
While the trial court’s findings are sufficient to sustain its decision, the written “Minutes, Judgment and Sentence” revoking Marshall’s probation does not identify the conditions of probation Marshall violated.2 An order
2022); Font v. State, 299 So. 3d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020); cf. Patt v. State,
876 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (applying same principle to revocation of community control).
Accordingly, we remand this matter for entry of an appropriate order revoking Marshall’s probation that identifies the conditions of probation
Marshall was found to have violated.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED for entry of a written order revoking probation.
WALLIS, J., concurs. EISNAUGLE, J., concurs in result only, without opinion.
DCA 2018). However, the Judgment and Sentence herein, even though also entitled “Minutes,” is a rendered and appealable order. See Dep't of Child. & Fams. v. E.G., 939 So. 2d 226, 229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. Wagner, 863 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2004)
- Patt v. State, 876 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Davis v. State, 239 So. 3d 202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. E.G., 939 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Galyn Scott Hoeft v. State, 351 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)