KERRIDGE v. STATE (2020)

In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we are required to “examine the record to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record.” State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla. 1987). We find no reversible error, and affirm the trial court's revocation of probation and subsequent sentences.

We remand solely for correction of a scrivener's error in the Order of Revocation, which fails to comport with the court's oral pronouncement. See Robinson v. State, 963 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (affirming, but remanding for court to conform written revocation order to oral pronouncement); Thompson v. State, 965 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (explaining oral pronouncement controls). The court orally pronounced three violations, including a violation of Special Condition 5 (refrain from consuming alcohol), but the Order of Revocation failed to list that violation. On remand, the court shall enter a corrected Order of Revocation that includes the violation of this condition. Appellant need not be present. See Butler v. State, 450 So. 2d 1283, 1284-85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (affirming and remanding, in Anders VOP appeal, to add orally pronounced violation not included in written order).

Affirmed, but Remanded with instructions.

Per Curiam.

Rowe, Makar, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.