Campbell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Campbell v. State

874 So. 2d 693, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7362, 2004 WL 1161845

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 26, 2004

DocketNo. 4D03-3441

StatusPublished

This text of 874 So. 2d 693 (Campbell 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

Campbell v. State, 874 So. 2d 693, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7362, 2004 WL 1161845 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James Campbell was charged with violating Conditions 3 and 5 of his probation. Campbell admitted that he violated Condition 3, and the State agreed not to proceed on Condition 5. The trial court accepted the plea agreement, revoked Campbell’s probation, and imposed the maximum available sentence recognized by the parties. The trial court then entered a written order revoking Campbell’s probation based on a violation of Condition 5.

Both Campbell and the State agree that the revocation and sentence should be affirmed. However, both parties also agree that the written order of revocation should be remanded so that it can be corrected to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement accepting Campbell’s plea as to Condition 3, not Condition 5. We agree that the revocation order must be remanded for such correction. See Rodriguez v. State, 777 So.2d 1175, 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(case remanded for the trial court to enter a written order of revocation in conformance with the court’s oral pronouncement); Robinson v. State, 763 So.2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(“A written revocation order must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement.”).

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED for entry of a corrected order of revocation.

GUNTHER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

James Campbell was charged with violating Conditions 3 and 5 of his probation. Campbell admitted that he violated Condition 3, and the State agreed not to proceed on Condition 5. The trial court accepted the plea agreement, revoked Campbell’s probation, and imposed the maximum available sentence recognized by the parties. The trial court then entered a written order revoking Campbell’s probation based on a violation of Condition 5.

Both Campbell and the State agree that the revocation and sentence should be affirmed. However, both parties also agree that the written order of revocation should be remanded so that it can be corrected to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement accepting Campbell’s plea as to Condition 3, not Condition 5. We agree that the revocation order must be remanded for such correction. See Rodriguez v. State, 777 So.2d 1175, 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(case remanded for the trial court to enter a written order of revocation in conformance with the court’s oral pronouncement); Robinson v. State, 763 So.2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(“A written revocation order must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement.”).

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED for entry of a corrected order of revocation.

GUNTHER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

874 So. 2d 693, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7362, 2004 WL 1161845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack