HOWARD LIUTENANT MARSHALL vs STATE OF FLORIDA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: April 21, 2023
• Docket: 22-2623
• 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

HOWARD LIUTENANT MARSHALL,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-2623 LT Case No. 2020-CF-1184-A

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. ________________________________/

Opinion filed April 21, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Melissa Souto, Judge.

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

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Roberts J. Bradford, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. SOUD, J.

In this Anders 1 appeal, Appellant Howard Marshall appeals his

judgment and sentence following his violation of probation. We affirm.

However, we remand this matter to the trial court for entry of a written order

identifying the conditions of probation that the court found Marshall violated.

In his underlying case, Marshall entered a plea of guilty with a

negotiated sentence of 365 days in jail followed by two years drug offender

probation. Marshall was alleged to have violated his probation by, inter alia,

(i) using intoxicants to excess and possessing drugs or narcotics not

prescribed by a physician, and (ii) failing to report to probation. Following

hearing, the trial court found Marshall willfully violated these material

conditions of probation by testing positive for cocaine and failing to report to

probation in August 2022. As a result, the trial court revoked Marshall’s

probation and sentenced him to forty-nine months in prison.

While the trial court’s findings are sufficient to sustain its decision, the

written “Minutes, Judgment and Sentence” revoking Marshall’s probation

does not identify the conditions of probation Marshall violated. 2 An order

1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 The trial court’s oral pronouncement reflected in the court minutes of the violation of probation hearing does not constitute an order, even though the minutes are signed by the trial judge. See State v. Wagner, 863 So. 2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 2004); see also Davis v. State, 239 So. 3d 202 (Fla. 5th 2 revoking probation must state in writing the conditions the trial court found a

defendant to have violated. See Hoeft v. State, 351 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA

2022); Font v. State, 299 So. 3d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020); cf. Patt v. State,

876 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (applying same principle to revocation

of community control).

Accordingly, we remand this matter for entry of an appropriate order

revoking Marshall’s probation that identifies the conditions of probation

Marshall was found to have violated.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED for entry of a written order revoking

probation.

WALLIS, J., concurs. EISNAUGLE, J., concurs in result only, without opinion.

DCA 2018). However, the Judgment and Sentence herein, even though also entitled “Minutes,” is a rendered and appealable order. See Dep't of Child. & Fams. v. E.G., 939 So. 2d 226, 229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).