N.G. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

N.G. v. State

50 So. 3d 801, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1445, 2011 WL 222171

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 2011

DocketNo. 3D10-559

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 50 So. 3d 801 (N.G. 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

N.G. v. State, 50 So. 3d 801, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1445, 2011 WL 222171 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

CONFESSION OF ERROR

WELLS, Judge.

N.G. appeals from an adjudication of delinquency, claiming that the written order of adjudication does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement that the juvenile’s adjudication be withheld. The State confesses error. Because, as the State concedes, the record confirms that the trial court ordered that the adjudication be withheld at the adjudicatory hearing, we reverse and remand to the lower court for correction of the written adjudicatory order to conform to the oral pronouncement. See S.S.M. v. State, 875 So.2d 763, 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (finding that a “written probation order must conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncements at sentencing”); see also S.D.F. v. State, 911 So.2d 887, 887-88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (reversing and remanding to trial court to correct written adjudicatory and probation orders that were inconsistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncements at the hearing on petition for delinquency).

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

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

CONFESSION OF ERROR

WELLS, Judge.

N.G. appeals from an adjudication of delinquency, claiming that the written order of adjudication does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement that the juvenile’s adjudication be withheld. The State confesses error. Because, as the State concedes, the record confirms that the trial court ordered that the adjudication be withheld at the adjudicatory hearing, we reverse and remand to the lower court for correction of the written adjudicatory order to conform to the oral pronouncement. See S.S.M. v. State, 875 So.2d 763, 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (finding that a “written probation order must conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncements at sentencing”); see also S.D.F. v. State, 911 So.2d 887, 887-88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (reversing and remanding to trial court to correct written adjudicatory and probation orders that were inconsistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncements at the hearing on petition for delinquency).

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 So. 3d 801, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1445, 2011 WL 222171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ng-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack