Maddox v. State

619 So. 2d 473, 1993 WL 196300
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 11, 1993
Docket92-3082
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 619 So. 2d 473 (Maddox 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
Maddox v. State, 619 So. 2d 473, 1993 WL 196300 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

619 So.2d 473 (1993)

Luther D. MADDOX, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 92-3082.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 11, 1993.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Sonya Roebuck Horbelt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

JOANOS, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation. Appellant contends the revocation order is deficient, in that it does not set forth the specific conditions of probation which appellant was found to have violated. We affirm the order revoking probation, but remand for amendment of the order to reflect the specific terms and conditions of probation violated.

A trial court's formal written order finding the probationer in violation of the terms and conditions of probation must conform to the oral pronouncements at the revocation hearing and sentencing. Brundage v. State, 593 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Dantler v. State, 584 So.2d 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). At the hearing in this cause, the trial court found appellant willfully and substantially violated two of the four alleged violations set forth in the affidavit of violation of probation. However, the order revoking probation fails to state the specific grounds for the revocation.

Accordingly, the order revoking appellant's probation is affirmed, but the cause is remanded with directions to enter a written order conforming to the court's oral pronouncements at sentencing.

ERVIN and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Junk v. State
230 So. 3d 984 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Robinson v. State
963 So. 2d 339 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Smith v. State
892 So. 2d 513 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Blankenship v. State
745 So. 2d 583 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Bingham v. State
719 So. 2d 1032 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Taramona v. State
707 So. 2d 1194 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Davis v. State
704 So. 2d 681 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Charlton v. State
675 So. 2d 949 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Benton v. State
652 So. 2d 1288 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Peterson v. State
651 So. 2d 248 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Wells v. State
651 So. 2d 759 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Hood v. State
642 So. 2d 665 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Wiggins v. State
636 So. 2d 202 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
619 So. 2d 473, 1993 WL 196300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maddox-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.