From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stephens v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 14, 2000
756 So. 2d 200 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Opinion

No. 2D99-708.

Opinion filed April 14, 2000.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Nancy K. Donnellan, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John C. Fisher, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sonya Roebuck Horbelt, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

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


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).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.


Summaries of

Stephens v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 14, 2000
756 So. 2d 200 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
Case details for

Stephens v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMIE DEMOND STEPHENS, Appellant v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Apr 14, 2000

Citations

756 So. 2d 200 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

Hutchins v. State

Therefore, the trial court's order is affirmed in all respects except as to its finding that appellant had…