Steven Sanford v. State of Florida

Opinion

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2025-3908

LT Case Nos. 2025-MM-002749-A 2025-MM-006944-A

_____________________________

STEVEN SANFORD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Marion County. Lori Cotton, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and George D.E. Burden, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Stephen R. Putnam, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

August 7, 2026

HARRIS, J.

Appellant, Steven Sanford, appeals his judgments and sentences imposed in two county court cases (a new law violation and a violation of probation (VOP)) following entry of an open plea

2

and admission. Sanford did not reserve the right to appeal the denial of a legally dispositive issue, and he did not move to withdraw his plea or admission and his sentences are legal. However, there is no written order revoking probation identifying the conditions Sanford admitted to violating. “If a trial court revokes a defendant’s probation, the court is required to render a written order noting the specific conditions of probation that were violated.” See Patt v. State, 876 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Brinson v. State, 866 So. 2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Sanford admitted to violating the four conditions listed in the VOP affidavit, and the court accepted the admission. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments and sentences in both cases, but remand the VOP case (2025-MM-002749-A) for the entry of an order identifying the conditions of probation Sanford violated. Patt, 876 So. 2d at 1278.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.

SOUD, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

_____________________________