KELLIN MILBURN KLEIN
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.
Klein appealed a probation revocation and 15-year prison sentence. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the revocation determination but remanded for the trial court to correct its written order to match its oral pronouncement that Klein violated only two of four alleged probation conditions.
The court held that competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court's determination that Klein willfully and substantially violated probation conditions, and the revocation and sentencing were proper. However, the written order must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement, reflecting only the two conditions actually found to be violated.
[1] Competent, substantial evidence supports a trial court's determination that a defendant willfully and substantially violated conditions of probation.
[2] A trial court does not err in revoking probation and sentencing a defendant to prison upon a finding of willful and substantial violation of probation conditions.
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 intelligence“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the evidentiary standard met for probation violation findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKlein was on probation with specific conditions. At a violation of probation hearing, the trial court orally found that Klein violated condition five …
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 Oral Pronouncement Vs. Written Order cases and more on FLexlaw
March 7, 2025 PRATT, J.
Having found no reversible error apparent on the face of the record, we affirm this Anders* appeal. In particular, we conclude that competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court’s * Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
determination that Appellant willfully and substantially violated conditions of his probation, see Knight v. State, 187 So. 3d 307, 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), and the trial court did not err in revoking Appellant’s probation and sentencing him to fifteen years in prison. However, we remand for the trial court to correct its written “Order Revoking Probation.” At the conclusion of the violation of probation hearing, the court found that Appellant had violated condition five and special condition sixteen but had not violated condition two and special condition six. The written order, however, stated that Appellant violated all four conditions. The oral pronouncement controls, and we will remand for the trial court to conform the written order to its oral pronouncement. See Hardy v. State, 301 So. 3d 1127, 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions. LAMBERT and HARRIS, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Davell Kavon Knight v. State, 187 So. 3d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)