SWAFORD v. STATE (2021)

Jerrett Swaford appeals the revocation of his probation and resulting sentence of 150 months in prison followed by ten years of sex offender probation for the underlying crime of sexual activity with a child. We affirm the revocation and resulting sentence without further comment. However, during the pendency of this appeal, this court requested supplementation of the record with the order of revocation, which was entered after the notice of appeal had been filed. Upon receipt of the order, several scrivener's errors were identified: (1) the order improperly states that Swaford admitted to violating his probation, but this is inaccurate as Swaford contested the allegations at a violation of probation hearing; (2) the order improperly refers to violations of conditions twenty-one and thirty, but it is clear based on the substantive descriptions of those conditions in the order and based on the transcript of the hearing that the trial court meant to refer to violations of conditions twenty and twenty-nine; and (3) the order improperly states that Swaford was found in violation of condition twenty-nine (referred to as condition thirty in the order), even though the transcript from the hearing reflects that the trial court declined to find him in violation of that condition. Thus although we have concluded that no reversible error occurred, we sua sponte remand for correction of these scrivener's errors for purposes of accuracy. See Shuey v. State, 950 So. 2d 1285, 1285 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Swaford need not be present for the correction. See Royce v. State, 141 So. 3d 1278, 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

Because we are remanding for correction of scrivener's errors, we note one other problem reflected in the record before this court: the trial court entered a second judgment form upon revocation of probation. “Duplicative adjudications of guilt after revocation of probation or community control are superfluous, are unauthorized, and can cause undue confusion in future proceedings.” West v. State, 232 So. 3d 522, 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (quoting Butler v. State, 195 So. 3d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)); see also Jackson v. State, 56 So. 3d 65, 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). We note, however, that while these types of duplicative judgments should be avoided, this issue was not raised on appeal.

Affirmed and remanded for correction of scrivener's errors.

PER CURIAM.

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.