MALDONADO v. STATE (2022)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Hiram Antonio MALDONADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D21-2801

Decided: August 05, 2022

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Andrew Mich, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Whitney Brown Hartless, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

Appellant appeals the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court after Appellant admitted to violating his probation. We affirm the finding of violation but must remand because the trial court did not specify in its written order the conditions of probation Appellant was found to have violated. See Barkley v. State, 288 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (affirming revocation; remanding for entry of proper order); Roberts v. State, 76 So. 3d 1047, 1048 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“This court has consistently held that the trial judge must specify, in the written order or judgment, which conditions of probation or community control have been violated.” (citing Bell v. State, 60 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011))).

Accordingly, we remand for entry of a proper adjudicatory order that lists the specific conditions of probation Appellant violated.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED for entry of a proper order.

PER CURIAM.

COHEN, TRAVER and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network