Jones v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jones v. State

221 So. 3d 736, 2017 WL 2390639, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7971

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 2, 2017·No. Case 2D15-5331·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

SALARIO, Judge.

Rochelle Jones challenges the revocation of her drug-offender probation and resulting. sentences in this appeal that is proceeding pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We affirm without comment and remand solely to have the .trial cpurt enter ,a written revocation order that matches its oral pronouncement . after the violation hearing..

In September 2015, Ms. Jones’ probation officer filed an affidavit of violation , of probation charging Ms. Jones with one violation of condition nine for her failure to comply with the instructions of her probation officer and two violations of condition eleven for twice refusing to submit to random testing as directed by her probation officer. The violations stemmed from an incident during which Ms. Jones attempted to “defraud a drug test” and, failed to remain at the probation office to take a subsequent test despite receiving instructions from her probation officer to do so.

After an evidentiary hearing on November 5, 2015, the trial court orally pronounced that Ms. Jones had violated condition eleven of her drug-offender probation and sentenced her to forty-four months’ prison. The written order of revocation subsequently entered by the trial court, however, states that Ms. Jones committed one violation of condition- nine and two violations of condition twelve. “A written order of revocation must conform to the oral pronouncement at the hearing.” Narvaez v. State, 674 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); see also Margolis v. State, 148 So.3d 532, 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (remanding for the entry of a. corrected order of revocation to reflect the conditions of probation the defendant admitted violating). Thus, although we affirm the trial court’s decision to revoke Ms. Jones’ probation, we remand with instructions to enter a revocation order that conforms to the oral pronouncement that Ms. Jones was found to have committed a single violation of condition eleven of her drug offender probation. See Symes v. State, 193 So.3d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Narvaez, 674 So.2d at 869.

Affirmed; remanded with instructions.

NORTHCUTT and KELLY, JJ., Concur.

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

SALARIO, Judge.

Rochelle Jones challenges the revocation of her drug-offender probation and resulting. sentences in this appeal that is proceeding pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We affirm without comment and remand solely to have the .trial cpurt enter ,a written revocation order that matches its oral pronouncement . after the violation hearing..

In September 2015, Ms. Jones’ probation officer filed an affidavit of violation , of probation charging Ms. Jones with one violation of condition nine for her failure to comply with the instructions of her probation officer and two violations of condition eleven for twice refusing to submit to random testing as directed by her probation officer. The violations stemmed from an incident during which Ms. Jones attempted to “defraud a drug test” and, failed to remain at the probation office to take a subsequent test despite receiving instructions from her probation officer to do so.

After an evidentiary hearing on November 5, 2015, the trial court orally pronounced that Ms. Jones had violated condition eleven of her drug-offender probation and sentenced her to forty-four months’ prison. The written order of revocation subsequently entered by the trial court, however, states that Ms. Jones committed one violation of condition- nine and two violations of condition twelve. “A written order of revocation must conform to the oral pronouncement at the hearing.” Narvaez v. State, 674 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); see also Margolis v. State, 148 So.3d 532, 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (remanding for the entry of a. corrected order of revocation to reflect the conditions of probation the defendant admitted violating). Thus, although we affirm the trial court’s decision to revoke Ms. Jones’ probation, we remand with instructions to enter a revocation order that conforms to the oral pronouncement that Ms. Jones was found to have committed a single violation of condition eleven of her drug offender probation. See Symes v. State, 193 So.3d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Narvaez, 674 So.2d at 869.

Affirmed; remanded with instructions.

NORTHCUTT and KELLY, JJ., Concur.

Jones v. State, 221 So. 3d 736, 2017 WL 2390639, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7971 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

221 So. 3d 736 (Jones v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related