Martin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 4, 2012

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2012-05-04

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 2019

9 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[W]here a court orally pronounces a reason, consistent with one or more of the factors listed under section 948.06(8)(e)1[.] for its finding that the defendant, as a violent felony offender of special concern, poses a danger to the community, but fails to provide written reasons for its finding, the proper remedy is to affirm the revocation of the defendant's probation, but remand for entry of a written order conforming to the court's oral pronouncement.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Timothy Brown v. State, 275 So. 3d 830 - Dunn v. State

Relies on Lundy v. State · 76 So. 3d 357 - Kuczko v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2012-05-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

WHATLEY, Judge.

¶1In this appeal of the order revoking his probation, Anthony Martin argues that the trial court erred in failing to provide written reasons for its finding that, as a violent felony offender of special concern, he poses a danger to the community. § 948.06(8)(e), Fla. Stat. (2010). However, the trial court orally pronounced a reason that is consistent with section 948.06(8)(e)(l)(c). “Written orders must conform to the oral pronouncements made in open court.” Lundy v. State, 740 So.2d 54, 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

¶2Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Martin’s probation but remand for correction of the written order to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Kuczko v. State, 76 So.3d 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

¶3Affirmed but remanded.

DAVIS and BLACK, JJ., Concur.