Lee v. State, 1D01-3097.
| Decision Date | 12 September 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D01-3097.,1D01-3097. |
| Citation | 826 So.2d 457 |
| Parties | Jason S. LEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Anne H. Dunlap, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James W. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
This direct criminal appeal was brought pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Having reviewed the entire record, we agree that no reversible error occurred. We affirm the appellant's revocation of probation and imposition of judgment and sentence. However, we note that the corrected written order of revocation of probation does not conform to the oral pronouncement, an issue preserved for review by a timely motion under rule 3.800(b)(2).
While the transcript of the hearing of revocation of probation shows that Appellant admitted violating only conditions (11) and (12) of his probation, the first paragraph of the written order of revocation of probation states that Appellant also admitted violating conditions (5) and (7) of his probation. An order of revocation of probation should conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement, and if it includes violations of conditions which were not addressed at the hearing on the violation of probation, those violations should be stricken. See Salvatierra v. State, 691 So.2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Narvaez v. State, 674 So.2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
We therefore strike the language stating that Appellant violated conditions (5) and (7) of his probation and remand for entry of a corrected order. See Walker v. State, 686 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Appellant need not be present.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Odom v. State
...to the ultimate sanctions imposed"). Appellant misplaces his reliance on materially different facts in opinions like Lee v. State, 826 So.2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), in which we concluded that the lack of conformity between the trial court's oral pronouncement and the subsequent written pro......
-
McCloud v. State
...but remand for entry of a corrected order reflecting only a violation of condition five (new law violations). See Lee v. State , 826 So.2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). McCloud need not be present. AFFIRMED . Ray and Makar, JJ., concur.* Our decision in Bonner does not compel a different result.......
-
Long v. State, 1D03-3451.
...amendment of the Order of Revocation. Appellant need not be present when the trial court corrects these errors. See Lee v. State, 826 So.2d 457, 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). ERVIN, PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., ...
- Lott v. State, 1D01-5083.