SSM v. State

S.S.M., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 16, 2004.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2004-06-16

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 2011

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“a written probation order must conform with the trial court's oral pronouncements at sentencing”

quoted by 1 later decision, including SDF v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-06-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Marti Rothenberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Consuelo Maingot, Assistant Attorney General, and Adrienne Sampson, Certified Legal Intern, for appellee.

¶3Before COPE, GREEN, and RAMIREZ, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5As the State properly concedes, a written probation order must conform with the trial court's oral pronouncements at sentencing. We thus reverse and remand for the limited purpose of correcting the written order of probation to reflect the trial court's oral pronouncements, which in this case means that the probation order should reflect that the curfew of 8:00 p.m. does not apply if the juvenile is working past that hour.

¶6Reversed and remanded.