BRIDGER v. STATE (2021)

Robert W. Bridger appeals an order revoking his probation and the resulting sentence. We agree with Bridger that the trial court's finding that he violated condition 26 was not alleged in the affidavit of violation. Stanley v. State, 922 So. 2d 411, 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“A probationer must be violated for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed, and the reasons must be established by substantial competent evidence at the hearing.”); Richardson v. State, 694 So. 2d 147, 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“The revocation of a defendant's probation based on a violation not alleged in the charging document is a deprivation of the right to due process of law.” (citations omitted)); Wyns v. State, 679 So. 2d 882, 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (“Because fundamental due process requires revocation to be based upon only those violations alleged, the order of revocation is reversed.” (citation omitted)).

We therefore remand with instructions that the trial court strike the finding that Bridger violated condition 26. See Brown v. State, 6 So. 3d 671, 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). We otherwise affirm.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

PER CURIAM.

WALLIS, EISNAUGLE and SASSO, JJ., concur.