JONES
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.
When a revocation order contains a scrivener's error regarding how a defendant contested a probation violation charge, the judgment and sentence are affirmed but remand is appropriate for entry of a corrected order reflecting the actual proceedings.
[1] A revocation order containing a scrivener's error that mischaracterizes how a defendant contested a probation violation charge does not warrant reversal of the underlying…
[2] Ministerial correction of a revocation order may be accomplished on remand without the defendant's presence when the correction serves to align the order with the undispu…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones was found in violation of probation after an evidentiary hearing where he contested the charge. However, the revocation order erroneously stated…
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 Unreasonable Searches And Seizures cases and more on FLexlaw
December 4, 2024 PER CURIAM.
Following review of the record and proceedings below for fundamental error pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we find none. We affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence but remand for the correction of a scrivener’s error in the revocation order. The order details that Appellant entered a nolo contendere plea to his probation violation charge, but the record establishes that Appellant contested the charge and was ultimately found in violation after an evidentiary hearing. Remand is appropriate for entry of a corrected revocation order consistent with this opinion. See S.C. v. State, 322 So. 3d 228, 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (affirming judgment, sentence, and revocation order but remanding for entry of corrected revocation order); Enno v. State, 59 So. 3d 149, 149–50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Appellant need
not be present for this ministerial correction to the order. See Wolk v. State, 320 So. 3d 230, 230–31 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021); Harvis v. State, 252 So. 3d 418, 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).
AFFIRMED, and REMANDED for entry of a corrected revocation order. B.L. THOMAS, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Robert Lee Jones, Jr., pro se, Appellant. Jessica J. Yeary, 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
- Swearengin v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)
- Davis v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)