Southerland v. State

23 So. 3d 848, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 19295, 2009 WL 4721055
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 11, 2009·No. 5D09-332·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order revoking Southerland’s probation. The trial court had the inherent authority to vacate its prior order which was entered without notice to the State. See State v. Burton, 814 So.2d 136 (Fla.1975) (trial court had inherent authority to vacate order which was product of fraud, collusion, deceit, or mistake); State v. Brooks, 161 Ariz. 177, 777 P.2d 675 (1989) (trial court had inherent authority to vacate order purporting to terminate probation where order was entered as result of mistake or inadvertence). Furthermore, we see no reason why the trial court could not, as it did in this case, timely correct its acknowledged error where this court could have subsequently done so pursuant to a writ of certiorari. See, e.g., Rho-Sigma, Inc. v. Int’l Control and Measurements, Corp., 691 So.2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (trial court departed from essential requirements of law where it entered discovery order without notice to aggrieved party).

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, SAWAYA and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

Southerland v. State, 23 So. 3d 848, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 19295, 2009 WL 4721055 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

23 So. 3d 848 (Southerland v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Brooks
777 P.2d 675 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1989)
Rho-Sigma, Inc. v. International Control & Lower Measurements, Corp.
691 So. 2d 16 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)