Bealts v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bealts v. State

735 So. 2d 578, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8131, 1999 WL 397032

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 18, 1999

DocketNo. 98-02901

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 735 So. 2d 578 (Bealts v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bealts v. State, 735 So. 2d 578, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8131, 1999 WL 397032 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Edward Bealts (“Bealts”) appeals the trial court’s probation revocation order. Bealts raises two issues: (1) whether the trial court impermissively used Bealts’ testimony from a separate proceeding as a basis for finding a violation of probation, and (2) whether the trial court erred by using an unalleged violation of probation as the basis for a departure sentence. Neither issue has been properly preserved for appellate review. We affirm the trial court’s finding of violation of probation and sentence, without prejudice for Bealts to raise these issues in the proper motion for postconviction relief.

We remand this case, however, to the trial court so it may conform its written order to its oral pronouncements. Although the trial court’s oral pronouncement finds violations of conditions one, U, and three, its written order finds violations of conditions one, U, three and five. “When there is a difference between a court’s oral pronouncement and a written order, the oral pronouncement controls.” D.F. v. State, 650 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and BLUE and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Edward Bealts (“Bealts”) appeals the trial court’s probation revocation order. Bealts raises two issues: (1) whether the trial court impermissively used Bealts’ testimony from a separate proceeding as a basis for finding a violation of probation, and (2) whether the trial court erred by using an unalleged violation of probation as the basis for a departure sentence. Neither issue has been properly preserved for appellate review. We affirm the trial court’s finding of violation of probation and sentence, without prejudice for Bealts to raise these issues in the proper motion for postconviction relief.

We remand this case, however, to the trial court so it may conform its written order to its oral pronouncements. Although the trial court’s oral pronouncement finds violations of conditions one, U, and three, its written order finds violations of conditions one, U, three and five. “When there is a difference between a court’s oral pronouncement and a written order, the oral pronouncement controls.” D.F. v. State, 650 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and BLUE and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

735 So. 2d 578, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8131, 1999 WL 397032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bealts-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack