CRICHTON v. STATE (2020)

In this Anders ¹ appeal, Appellant challenges the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court following the revocation of her community control. We affirm without further discussion, with one exception.

Appellant provided an oral and written admission to violating her community control at the time of her hearing. However, the order of violation does not specify which condition of community control Appellant violated. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to enter a formal order of violation that lists the specific conditions the court determined Appellant violated. See Robinson v. State, 138 So. 3d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (remanding to the trial court for entry of a written order specifying the conditions of community control the trial court found defendant to have violated); Cato v. State, 845 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (remanding for entry of a formal order of violation and explaining that merely attaching an affidavit of violation of probation and community control to the final judgment is insufficient).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with Instructions.

FOOTNOTES

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

WALLIS, J.

ORFINGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.