JONES v. STATE (2020)

Michael Jones appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. As the State concedes, we must reverse because an affidavit of violation of probation is not included in the record on appeal. However, because the record reflects the possibility that a violation affidavit was filed in this case, we remand to the trial court for further proceedings directed at locating and considering the affidavit. See Raimondi v. State, 253 So. 3d 749, 750–51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (explaining that “[i]t is well-settled that ‘[i]t is a due process violation and fundamental error to revoke probation for violations not alleged in the affidavit of violation of probation,’ ” and remanding for the trial court “to conduct further proceedings directed at locating and considering the relevant affidavit” because the record did not contain the affidavit, but revealed the possibility that it was filed, and “to enter a written order specifying the basis for its revocation of community control” because the record did not contain a written order of revocation (citation omitted)); see also Lishinsky v. State, 219 So. 3d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (similar). If the trial court finds on remand that a violation affidavit was filed in this case, we instruct it to enter a written order revoking Jones’s probation and specifying the basis for revocation because, as the State acknowledges, the court erred by failing to enter a written order of revocation.^* See Hodges v. State, 262 So. 3d 842, 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (explaining that upon revoking a defendant’s probation, the trial court must render a written order of revocation specifying the conditions of probation that were violated).

Reversed and Remanded with directions.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Upon the entry of a written order of revocation of probation, Jones may appeal if he contends that any of the grounds relied on by the trial court are not supported by the evidence. See Mitchell v. State, 238 So. 3d 386, 387 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); see also Raimondi, 253 So. 3d at 751 n.4.

Per Curiam.

Ray, C.J., and Lewis and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.