Narvaez v. State, 95-01104
| Decision Date | 24 May 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-01104,95-01104 |
| Citation | 674 So.2d 868 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1246 Juan M. NARVAEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and John Klawikofsky, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
The appellant, Juan M. Narvaez, challenges an order revoking his probation and community control. We reverse and remand for clarification of the written revocation order.
An amended affidavit of violation of probation and community control alleges that Narvaez violated eleven conditions of his probation and community control. At his hearing, Narvaez admitted to violating condition (A), condition (J), condition 9 and condition 12. At the end of the hearing, the trial court found that Narvaez violated condition (A), condition 9 and condition 12. Based on these three violations, the trial court revoked his probation and community control. The trial court refused to hear testimony regarding other violations and stated that it was not violating him for those conditions. However, the written order of revocation of probation and community control erroneously lists all eleven violations.
A written order of revocation must conform to the oral pronouncement at the hearing. Corona v. State, 642 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Hawthorne v. State, 583 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Here, the written order lists several violations that were not addressed at the revocation hearing. Consequently, we reverse and remand with instructions to strike the reference to the conditions that the trial court failed to announce from the written revocation order.
Further, Narvaez admitted, and the trial court found, that he violated condition (A). This finding was fundamental error because Narvaez was never ordered to comply with this condition. See Hoshaw v. State, 533 So.2d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Therefore, the reference to condition (A) should also be stricken from the written revocation order.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to strike the reference to all conditions except condition 9 and condition 12 from the written order of revocation. Narvaez need not be present for the entry of the amended revocation order.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilcox v. State
...revoke a defendant's probation based upon the violation of a condition with which he was not ordered to comply. See Narvaez v. State, 674 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In summary, we find record support for the court's finding that appellant violated the order of probation as charged i......
-
Pinello v. State, Case No. 2D19-1918
...Cato violated." (emphasis omitted)). That written order "must conform to the oral pronouncement at the hearing." Narvaez v. State, 674 So. 2d 868, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (first citing Corona v. State, 642 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) ; and then citing Hawthorne v. State, 583 So. 2d 425 (Fl......
-
Keith-Schrader v. State, 2D04-1842.
...27. Because the oral pronouncement controls over the written, see Cockrell v. State, 823 So.2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Narvaez v. State, 674 So.2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), we will consider only the allegations and proof relating to conditions 1 and 27, requiring the filing of monthly reports......
-
Salvatierra v. State, 96-2252
...of probation revocation must conform to the court's oral pronouncement at a defendant's probation revocation hearing. Narvaez v. State, 674 So.2d 868(Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Snell v. State, 658 So.2d 1165(Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Defendant here complains that the inclusion of the offense of possession......