HENLEY v. STATE (2019)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Titus L. HENLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1418

Decided: July 17, 2019

Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Following a probation violation hearing, the trial court revoked Appellant's probation but did not enter a written order of revocation. Both Appellant and the State assert remand is required to permit the trial court to enter a written order listing the grounds for revocation of probation. We agree.

“It is well-settled that a trial court must ‘reduce to writing its oral pronouncement of the violation and revocation of ․ probation.’ ” Mitchell v. State, 238 So. 3d 386, 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (citations omitted). The written order must set forth the conditions the trial judge has found to have been violated and state that the probation has been revoked. McCloud v. State, 653 So. 2d 453, 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (citing Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 612, 105 S.Ct. 2254, 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985)).

Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court with instructions to enter a written order of revocation setting forth the conditions for revocation. Appellant need not be present for the entry of the written order. Id. at 456.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network