Travese Woolfork v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Travese Woolfork v. State of Florida

187 So. 3d 949, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4530, 2016 WL 1133789

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 23, 2016

Docket4D14-3766

StatusPublished

This text of 187 So. 3d 949 (Travese Woolfork v. State of Florida) 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

Travese Woolfork v. State of Florida, 187 So. 3d 949, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4530, 2016 WL 1133789 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MAY, J.

The defendant appeals an order revoking his probation. He argues the trial court’s finding that he violated probation by associating with persons involved in criminal activity is inconsistent with the finding that he did not commit any of the alleged crimes. We disagree and affirm. We remand the case, however, for the trial court to conform the written order of revocation to its oral pronouncement.

The order of revocation inaccurately reflects that the defendant violated “condition (6) as stated in affidavit dated 8/19/13.” August 19, 2013 was the date of the original affidavit. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the amended affidavit filed October 15, 2013. And, the court orally found the defendant violated condition 6 of his probation as alleged in the amended affidavit filed October 15, 2013. See Rodriguez v. State, 777 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding the trial court’s written probation revocation order must conform to trial court’s oral pronouncements).

We therefore affirm, but remand the case for correction of the order of revocation.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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

MAY, J.

The defendant appeals an order revoking his probation. He argues the trial court’s finding that he violated probation by associating with persons involved in criminal activity is inconsistent with the finding that he did not commit any of the alleged crimes. We disagree and affirm. We remand the case, however, for the trial court to conform the written order of revocation to its oral pronouncement.

The order of revocation inaccurately reflects that the defendant violated “condition (6) as stated in affidavit dated 8/19/13.” August 19, 2013 was the date of the original affidavit. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the amended affidavit filed October 15, 2013. And, the court orally found the defendant violated condition 6 of his probation as alleged in the amended affidavit filed October 15, 2013. See Rodriguez v. State, 777 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding the trial court’s written probation revocation order must conform to trial court’s oral pronouncements).

We therefore affirm, but remand the case for correction of the order of revocation.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 So. 3d 949, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4530, 2016 WL 1133789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travese-woolfork-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack