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.
Jones appealed his probation revocation conviction, challenging the judgment and sentence under Anders review. The court found no fundamental error and affirmed the conviction, but remanded for correction of a scrivener's error in the revocation order that incorrectly stated Jones entered a nolo contendere plea when he actually contested the violation charge and was found in violation after an evidentiary hearing.
The court affirmed Jones's judgment and sentence, finding no fundamental error. However, the court remanded the case for correction of the scrivener's error in the revocation order to accurately reflect that Jones contested the probation violation charge and was found in violation after an evidentiary hearing, rather than entering a nolo contendere plea.
[1] A scrivener's error in a probation revocation order that incorrectly reflects the manner in which a violation was adjudicated requires remand for correction even when the…
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“Following review of the record and proceedings below for fundamental error pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we find none.”
Establishes the standard of review and the court's conclusion that no fundamental error was present in the conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones was charged with a probation violation. Rather than entering a nolo contendere plea, he contested the charge and proceeded to an evidentiary hea…
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 Fundamental Error Review 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
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 320 So. 3d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)…arge, 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 correc…1 / 2
-
Berry v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)
-
Boyce v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Enno v. State, 59 So. 3d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Harvis v. State, 252 So. 3d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
- Jones v. State, 320 So. 3d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)