RANDOLPH v. STATE (2020)

In this consolidated appeal, Appellant Glen W. Randolph contests his convictions of armed robbery of a structure and attempted robbery with a firearm. With respect to those convictions, we affirm without discussion, concluding the trial court did not err, either in denying Appellant's motion for a mistrial following an inadvertent statement by one of the State's witnesses, and in allowing the State to introduce evidence concerning Appellant's co-defendant.

The appeal also takes issue with the trial court's disposition in a violation of probation case, wherein the court found Appellant committed a willful and substantial violation of probation. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to make written findings specifying which condition(s) of probation Appellant was found to have violated. The State concedes error on this argument. We have previously held that, “[i]f a trial court revokes a defendant's probation, the court is required to render a written order noting the specific conditions of probation that were violated.” King v. State, 46 So. 3d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citations omitted). Thus, we remand for the trial court to amend the order to include the condition(s) of probation the court found Appellant violated. Id. We otherwise affirm the revocation of probation and the trial court's judgment and sentence.

Affirmed in part, remanded in part.

Forst, J.

Damoorgian and Artau, JJ., concur.