Reames v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Reames v. State

171 So. 3d 770, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11199, 2015 WL 4497808

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 24, 2015

Docket2D14-1305

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 171 So. 3d 770 (Reames 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

Reames v. State, 171 So. 3d 770, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11199, 2015 WL 4497808 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After finding that he willfully violated probation, the trial court revoked Robert Eugene Reames’ probation and sentenced him to six years in prison for trafficking in stolen property in case ll-CF-1684 and to a concurrent term of five years in prison for burglary of a structure in case 12-CF-174. We affirm. However, despite the *771 trial court granting Reames’ motion to correct scrivener’s errors, Reames’ corrected orders of probation still contain the errors. Specifically, both orders reflect that he admitted to the violations of probation when he actually contested the violations. Also, the order of revocation in case 12-CF-174 erroneously reflects that the trial court found him to have violated conditions one and sixteen of his probation, when the trial court orally found him to have violated only condition one in that case. Accordingly, we remand for entry of corrected written orders of revocation of probation in cases ll-CF-1684 and 12-CF-174. See Moore v. State, 100 So.3d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Reames need not be present when the corrections are made.

Affirmed and remanded for correction of the written orders of revocation of probation.

LaROSE, KHOUZAM, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

After finding that he willfully violated probation, the trial court revoked Robert Eugene Reames’ probation and sentenced him to six years in prison for trafficking in stolen property in case ll-CF-1684 and to a concurrent term of five years in prison for burglary of a structure in case 12-CF-174. We affirm. However, despite the *771 trial court granting Reames’ motion to correct scrivener’s errors, Reames’ corrected orders of probation still contain the errors. Specifically, both orders reflect that he admitted to the violations of probation when he actually contested the violations. Also, the order of revocation in case 12-CF-174 erroneously reflects that the trial court found him to have violated conditions one and sixteen of his probation, when the trial court orally found him to have violated only condition one in that case. Accordingly, we remand for entry of corrected written orders of revocation of probation in cases ll-CF-1684 and 12-CF-174. See Moore v. State, 100 So.3d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Reames need not be present when the corrections are made.

Affirmed and remanded for correction of the written orders of revocation of probation.

LaROSE, KHOUZAM, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 So. 3d 770, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11199, 2015 WL 4497808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reames-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack