Tirrell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tirrell v. State

190 So. 3d 199, 2016 WL 1579253, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5962

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 20, 2016

DocketNO. 3D15-2875

StatusPublished

This text of 190 So. 3d 199 (Tirrell 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

Tirrell v. State, 190 So. 3d 199, 2016 WL 1579253, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5962 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, Judge.

David' Allan Tirrell appeals from a probation revocation order séntencing him to 16 months in prison. Tirrell argues that the trial court erred in revoking his probation (1) solely on Tirrell’s admission that he was arrested for a number of crimes in violation of the terms of his probation; (2) for according him with less credit for time served than he was entitled to and (3) because the written revocation order did not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement.

We find no merit in Tirrell’s argument that his probation was revoked solely on his admission that he was arrested for a number of crimes while on probation or on his claim that he was not accorded credit for all of the time served to which he was due. We do, however, find that the written revocation order which concludes that Tirrell violated condition 1 of the probation order does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement that Tirrell did not violate that condition and vacate that portion of the order. See Laffitte v. State, 16 So.3d 315, 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“ ‘A written order of probation revocation must conform to the court’s oral pronouncement at a defendant’s probation revocation hearing.’ Salvatierra v. State, 691 So.2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (citing Narvaez v. State, 674 So.2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Snell v. State, 658 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)).”). The order on appeal is, therefore, affirmed in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

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

WELLS, Judge.

David' Allan Tirrell appeals from a probation revocation order séntencing him to 16 months in prison. Tirrell argues that the trial court erred in revoking his probation (1) solely on Tirrell’s admission that he was arrested for a number of crimes in violation of the terms of his probation; (2) for according him with less credit for time served than he was entitled to and (3) because the written revocation order did not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement.

We find no merit in Tirrell’s argument that his probation was revoked solely on his admission that he was arrested for a number of crimes while on probation or on his claim that he was not accorded credit for all of the time served to which he was due. We do, however, find that the written revocation order which concludes that Tirrell violated condition 1 of the probation order does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement that Tirrell did not violate that condition and vacate that portion of the order. See Laffitte v. State, 16 So.3d 315, 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“ ‘A written order of probation revocation must conform to the court’s oral pronouncement at a defendant’s probation revocation hearing.’ Salvatierra v. State, 691 So.2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (citing Narvaez v. State, 674 So.2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Snell v. State, 658 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)).”). The order on appeal is, therefore, affirmed in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 So. 3d 199, 2016 WL 1579253, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tirrell-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack