Moncrieffe v. State

17 So. 3d 850, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 12816, 2009 WL 2762634

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for a violation of probation based on his arrest on new charges. He argues the court erred in finding that he violated his probation and in failing to enter a written order of revocation. We find no error in the court’s finding that the defendant violated his probation, but we do find error in the trial court’s failure “to enter a written order specifying the specific condition of probation that [the defendant] violated....” Peterson v. State, 962 So.2d 367, 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). We therefore reverse and remand the case to the trial court for entry of a written order of revocation.

Reversed in parí and remanded.

STEVENSON, MAY and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.