Onelio Castro v. the State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: September 24, 2025
• Docket: 3D2023-2176
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 24, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-2176 Lower Tribunal No. F14-18631 ________________

Onelio Castro, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ellen Sue Venzer, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jennifer Thornton, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, C.J., and LINDSEY, and BOKOR, JJ.

LINDSEY, J. Appellant Onelio Castro appeals from the trial court’s revocation of his

probation. Following a probation violation hearing, the court revoked

Castro’s probation and sentenced him to sixty years in prison. The court did

not issue a written opinion revoking Castro’s probation. “The United States

Supreme Court has stated that the due process requirements of a probation

revocation hearing include . . . a written statement by the factfinder as to the

evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation.” McCloud v.

State, 653 So. 2d 453, 454–55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (quoting with emphasis

Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 612 (1985)). “It is well-settled that a trial

court must ‘reduce to writing its oral pronouncement of the violations and

revocation of . . . probation.’” Mitchell v. State, 238 So. 3d 386, 386 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2018) (quoting Brown v. State, 127 So. 3d 831, 831 (Fla. 3d DCA

2013)).

Both Castro and the State properly agree that we must remand with

instructions to enter a written order. Accordingly, we remand for the trial

court to enter a written order of revocation of probation. 1

Remanded with instructions.

1 We express no opinion on any of the other issues raised.