Smolinski v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smolinski v. State

153 So. 3d 378, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20396, 2014 WL 7156377

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 17, 2014

Docket2D14-582

StatusPublished

This text of 153 So. 3d 378 (Smolinski 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

Smolinski v. State, 153 So. 3d 378, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20396, 2014 WL 7156377 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

KELLY, Judge.

Christineann D. Smolinski appeals the sentence imposed upon her following the revocation of her probation. We affirm her sentence but remand for entry of a written order of revocation of probation.

While her appeal was pending, Ms. Smo-linski filed a motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) due to the lack of a written order of revocation. The trial court denied the motion stating that “[a]n Order of Community Control was entered by this Court on January 17, 2014.” Although the Order of Community Control reflects the conditions of probation Ms. Smolinski was found to have violated, this court has concluded that failure to enter a separate written order of revocation of probation is error. See Kiburis v. State, 18 So.3d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Moschiano v. State, 12 So.3d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Dawkins v. State, 936 So.2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). We therefore remand this case for entry of a proper written revocation order. See Kiburis, 18 So.3d at 1254.

Affirmed; remanded with instructions.

WALLACE and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

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

KELLY, Judge.

Christineann D. Smolinski appeals the sentence imposed upon her following the revocation of her probation. We affirm her sentence but remand for entry of a written order of revocation of probation.

While her appeal was pending, Ms. Smo-linski filed a motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) due to the lack of a written order of revocation. The trial court denied the motion stating that “[a]n Order of Community Control was entered by this Court on January 17, 2014.” Although the Order of Community Control reflects the conditions of probation Ms. Smolinski was found to have violated, this court has concluded that failure to enter a separate written order of revocation of probation is error. See Kiburis v. State, 18 So.3d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Moschiano v. State, 12 So.3d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Dawkins v. State, 936 So.2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). We therefore remand this case for entry of a proper written revocation order. See Kiburis, 18 So.3d at 1254.

Affirmed; remanded with instructions.

WALLACE and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 So. 3d 378, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20396, 2014 WL 7156377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smolinski-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack