Burney v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burney v. State

114 So. 3d 455, 2013 WL 2420428, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8883

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 5, 2013

DocketNo. 4D12-118

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 114 So. 3d 455 (Burney 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

Burney v. State, 114 So. 3d 455, 2013 WL 2420428, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8883 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from the circuit court’s revocation of his probation. He argues that the court’s written order of revocation of probation is not consistent with the court’s oral pronouncement. See Ortiz v. State, 2 So.3d 318, 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“A written order of revocation must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement.”) (citation omitted).

However, as the state points out, the defendant did not preserve this argument with either a contemporaneous objection or a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion. See Evans v. State, 895 So.2d 1292, 1292-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (defendant did not preserve his argument regarding the discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence, written sentence, and order on probation with either a contemporaneous objection or a rule 3.800 motion).

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court’s revocation of probation, but without prejudice to the defendant’s ability to file a rule 3.800 motion in the circuit court raising this argument.

Affirmed without prejudice.

MAY, C.J., GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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