Flowers v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Flowers v. State

595 So. 2d 263, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2499, 1992 WL 48921

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 11, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1291

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 595 So. 2d 263 (Flowers 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

Flowers v. State, 595 So. 2d 263, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2499, 1992 WL 48921 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A jury found the appellant, Owen Temple Flowers, guilty of battery upon a law enforcement officer. He was subsequently placed on probation for that offense and this appeal challenges the court’s probation order. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which she states that but for a minor sentencing error cognizable in an Anders appeal, she is unable to make a good faith argument that reversible error occurred in the trial court. Our independent review of the record persuades us that counsel is correct. We therefore affirm the probation order in all respects but remand for deletion of one condition of probation erroneously imposed.

At sentencing, the trial judge announced his decision to withhold adjudication of the appellant’s guilt and sentence the appellant to 12 months of probation. On the same day, the judge signed an order embodying the sentence orally pronounced, but including this condition of probation not mentioned at the sentencing hearing: “The court retains jurisdiction to place you in the Probation and Restitution Center upon recommendation of your Probation/Community Control Officer without the finding of Violation of Probation/Community Control.” Inclusion in a written order of special conditions of probation that were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing mandates a remand with instructions that the written order be corrected to conform with the oral pronouncement. See Sumter v. State, 570 So.2d 1039, 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. dismissed, 583 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1991); Rowland v. State, 548 So.2d 812, 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Bryant v. State, 577 So.2d 1372, 1375-76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); and Ashe v. State, 582 So.2d 759, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We therefore reverse the appealed order of probation and remand for deletion of the above-referenced condition. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.

SMITH, ZEHMER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

A jury found the appellant, Owen Temple Flowers, guilty of battery upon a law enforcement officer. He was subsequently placed on probation for that offense and this appeal challenges the court’s probation order. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which she states that but for a minor sentencing error cognizable in an Anders appeal, she is unable to make a good faith argument that reversible error occurred in the trial court. Our independent review of the record persuades us that counsel is correct. We therefore affirm the probation order in all respects but remand for deletion of one condition of probation erroneously imposed.

At sentencing, the trial judge announced his decision to withhold adjudication of the appellant’s guilt and sentence the appellant to 12 months of probation. On the same day, the judge signed an order embodying the sentence orally pronounced, but including this condition of probation not mentioned at the sentencing hearing: “The court retains jurisdiction to place you in the Probation and Restitution Center upon recommendation of your Probation/Community Control Officer without the finding of Violation of Probation/Community Control.” Inclusion in a written order of special conditions of probation that were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing mandates a remand with instructions that the written order be corrected to conform with the oral pronouncement. See Sumter v. State, 570 So.2d 1039, 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. dismissed, 583 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1991); Rowland v. State, 548 So.2d 812, 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Bryant v. State, 577 So.2d 1372, 1375-76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); and Ashe v. State, 582 So.2d 759, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We therefore reverse the appealed order of probation and remand for deletion of the above-referenced condition. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.

SMITH, ZEHMER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

595 So. 2d 263, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2499, 1992 WL 48921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flowers-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack