MICHEL v. STATE (2019)

Appellant, Jaslen Michel, challenges the judgments and sentences entered upon the revocation of his probation for three counts of armed robbery with a weapon, two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm, one count of burglary of a dwelling, and one count of grand theft. On appeal, Michel raises several issues, but we discern merit in only one. See Chamberlain v. State, 881 So. 2d 1087, 1097-98 (Fla. 2004) (finding fact that trial judge formed a fixed opinion as to the culpability of a co-defendant insufficient to warrant disqualification); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(c); Rosario v. State, 406 So. 2d 106, 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (“[I]t is obvious that the defendant's commission of the substantive crime alone was sufficient to support and in fact was responsible for the conclusions reached below.”) (citations omitted). As the written order of probation revocation does not conform with the court's oral pronouncement at the time of the revocation hearing, we reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to enter a written order which so conforms. See Laffitte v. State, 16 So. 3d 315, 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“A written order of probation revocation must conform to the court's oral pronouncement at a defendant's probation revocation hearing.”) (quoting Salvatierra v. State, 691 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)).

Reversed and remanded.

PER CURIAM.