Because the revocation order does not state the conditions of probation that Vidana violated, we remand for the revocation order to be amended to indicate the conditions violated. See Hamiter v. State, 290 So. 3d 1003, 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (remanding for an amended revocation order in an Anders appeal when the revocation order did not state the condition violated); Freeman v. State, 225 So. 3d 929, 930 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (remanding in an Anders appeal for entry of an amended revocation order that specified the conditions the defendant admitted to violating). Otherwise, we affirm the revocation order and sentences in 16-CF-13306 and 16-CF-13554.
However, we reverse the written judgment that was reentered upon revocation as superfluous in light of the judgment adjudicating his guilt that was entered at the time of his original convictions and remand for the striking of that second written judgment. See Freeman v. State, 225 So. 3d 929, 930 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("Entering those same judgments a second time in conjunction with the entry of the new written sentences is an error, correctable in an Anders proceeding, that requires the reversal of the new and superfluous written judgments."); Butler v. State, 195 So. 3d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ("Duplicative adjudications of guilt after revocation of probation or community control are superfluous, are unauthorized, and can cause undue confusion in future proceedings.").Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
Following independent review of the record pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we affirm the revocation of Miller's probation and the sentence imposed but remand with directions that the trial court correct the revocation order to reflect the conditions of probation that Miller admitted violating. See Freeman v. State, 225 So. 3d 929, 930 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Because we note that the revocation order fails to specify the condition of probation that the trial court found Hamiter to have violated, however, we remand for the court to enter an amended revocation order specifying that condition. See Freeman v. State, 225 So. 3d 929, 930 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (remanding for entry of an amended order of revocation of probation "to reflect the conditions of probation ... that he admitted to violating"). II. Motion to Correct Sentencing Error
However, we reverse the second written judgment which was entered simultaneously with the entry of the amended written sentences, and we direct the trial court to strike the second judgment on remand. See Freeman v. State, 225 So. 3d 929, 930 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (holding that it was error to enter a second judgment in conjunction with the entry of new written sentences). With regard to the written sentences, the trial court shall strike the costs imposed pursuant to sections 938.10 and 938.085, Florida Statutes (2015), so that the written sentences reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement on said costs.
"Entering [the same judgment] a second time in conjunction with the entry of the new written sentence[ ] is an error, correctable in an Anders proceeding, that requires the reversal of the new and superfluous written judgment[ ]." Freeman v. State, 225 So.3d 929, 930 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). Second, although the record supports the trial court's oral findings and its determination that Espinoza–Brito had willfully and substantially violated the terms of his probation, the trial court does not appear to have entered the requisite written revocation order—the statement on the sentencing order, "And the court having placed the defendant on probation/community control and having subsequently revoked the defendant's probation/community control," does not suffice.