HIRAM ANTONIO MALDONADO vs STATE OF FLORIDA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: August 5, 2022
• Docket: 21-2801
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

HIRAM ANTONIO MALDONADO,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D21-2801 LT Case No. 2012-CF-000631-A-O STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________/

Opinion filed August 5, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Patricia Strowbridge, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Andrew Mich, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Whitney Brown Hartless, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. Appellant appeals the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial

court after Appellant admitted to violating his probation. We affirm the finding

of violation but must remand because the trial court did not specify in its

written order the conditions of probation Appellant was found to have

violated. See Barkley v. State, 288 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)

(affirming revocation; remanding for entry of proper order); Roberts v. State,

76 So. 3d 1047, 1048 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“This court has consistently held

that the trial judge must specify, in the written order or judgment, which

conditions of probation or community control have been violated.” (citing Bell

v. State, 60 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011))).

Accordingly, we remand for entry of a proper adjudicatory order that

lists the specific conditions of probation Appellant violated.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED for entry of a proper order.

COHEN, TRAVER and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.