Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

585 So. 2d 475

Docket Nos. 91-78, 91-80.

Thomas v. State

Christopher THOMAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 10, 1991.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1991-09-10

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently August 2016

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“violated the terms of his probation by being convicted of other substantive crimes: burglary, theft, dealing in stolen property, attempted possession of cocaine, and sale of cocaine.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 653 So. 2d 453 - McCloud v. State

“a written order specifying the reasons for revocation.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 653 So. 2d 453 - McCloud v. State

Relies on 494 So. 2d 274 - Esbenshade v. State · Guerra v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1991-09-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2*476 Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Patricia Ann Ash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and GERSTEN, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Appellant, Christopher Thomas, appeals a revocation of probation. We affirm.

¶6Appellant violated the terms of his probation by being convicted of other substantive crimes: burglary, theft, dealing in stolen property, attempted possession of cocaine, and sale of cocaine. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in revoking his probation, and in sentencing him, without entering a written order specifying the reasons for revocation.

¶7We find no error. Rule 3.790, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure prescribes the procedure for a revocation of probation, judgment, and sentence. Nothing in the rule requires a written order.

¶8Appellant relies on cases where the trial court made oral pronouncements which did not conform to the written reasons provided. See Guerra v. State, 567 So.2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Esbenshade v. State, 494 So.2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Because of the inconsistencies between the oral pronouncements and the written orders, the revocations in those cases were reversed.

¶9In this case, the order revoking probation contained no written reasons, and therefore no inconsistency. Accordingly, we find those cases to be inapplicable and affirm appellant's revocation of probation.

¶10Affirmed.

/585/so2d/475 · .json · Public domain