Stephens v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stephens v. State

756 So. 2d 200, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4399, 2000 WL 377473

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 2000

DocketNo. 2D99-708

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 756 So. 2d 200 (Stephens 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

Stephens v. State, 756 So. 2d 200, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4399, 2000 WL 377473 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

STRINGER, Judge.

Jamie Demond Stephens challenges an order revoking his community control. Because the evidence supports the trial court’s findings as to Stephens’ violation of conditions three, five and twelve, we affirm. The affidavit of violation also alleged that Stephens violated condition fourteen by failing to report to his community control officer, however, at the violation hearing the trial court found that this was not a willful violation. In spite of this finding, the written revocation order indicates that Stephens was found in violation of condition fourteen. Because the written order does not conform to the court’s oral pronouncement, we remand and direct that the violation of condition fourteen be stricken from the revocation order. See Dunkin v. State, 706 So.2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Stephens need not be present for this disposition. See Dunlap v. State, 405 So.2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

[201]*201Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.

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

STRINGER, Judge.

Jamie Demond Stephens challenges an order revoking his community control. Because the evidence supports the trial court’s findings as to Stephens’ violation of conditions three, five and twelve, we affirm. The affidavit of violation also alleged that Stephens violated condition fourteen by failing to report to his community control officer, however, at the violation hearing the trial court found that this was not a willful violation. In spite of this finding, the written revocation order indicates that Stephens was found in violation of condition fourteen. Because the written order does not conform to the court’s oral pronouncement, we remand and direct that the violation of condition fourteen be stricken from the revocation order. See Dunkin v. State, 706 So.2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Stephens need not be present for this disposition. See Dunlap v. State, 405 So.2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

[201]*201Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

756 So. 2d 200, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4399, 2000 WL 377473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephens-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack