Marin v. State
This text of 205 So. 3d 847 (Marin 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.
Opinion
In this Anders 1 appeal, we affirm Krystal Marin’s judgment and sentences but remand for the trial court to correct scrivener’s errors on the amended probation revocation orders. On February 9 and 15, 2016, the trial court entered probation revocation orders but failed to specify the conditions of probation violated. During the pendency of this appeal, Marin filed a motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), requesting that the trial court amend the revocation orders to reflect the conditions violated. The trial court granted Marin’s motion and directed the clerk to enter amended revocation orders reflecting that Marin admitted to violating conditions one, three, five, seven, and eleven. While the amended orders entered on June 15, 2016, state that Marin violated *848 conditions three, five, seven, and eleven, they fail to list condition one. We therefore remand for entry of corrected revocation orders which accurately reflect the conditions of probation Marin admitted to violating. See Margolis v. State, 148 So.3d 532, 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
Affirmed; remanded with directions.
. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
205 So. 3d 847, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marin-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.