J.K., Appellant, v. STATE (2022)

In this Anders ¹ appeal, J.K., a juvenile, appeals an order revoking his probation after the court found that he had violated it. We affirm in all respects except that we remand for the court to correct the violation order.

The record shows that although a written violation order was rendered, it did not specify the conditions that J.K. was found to have violated. “[T]he law is well-settled: if the trial court revokes a juvenile's probation, the court is required to render a written order setting forth the conditions of probation that were violated.” Badgers v. State, 267 So. 3d 512, 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting T.M. v. State, 233 So. 3d 1275, 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)).

Accordingly, we affirm but remand for the trial court to enter a written revocation order setting forth the specific conditions of probation that J.K. was found to have violated. See, e.g., A.T.J.F. v. State, 78 So. 3d 57, 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (affirming revocation of juvenile's probation in Anders appeal but remanding for entry of written order of revocation specifying conditions found to have been violated); see also Vidana v. State, 313 So. 3d 206, 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (affirming revocation order and sentences in Anders appeal but remanding for amendment of revocation order to indicate conditions found to have been violated).

Affirmed; remanded with instructions.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

KHOUZAM, Judge.

KELLY and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.