Todd J. Hart v. State , 252 So. 3d 1285 ( 2018 )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
TODD JAMES HART,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-3438
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed September 14, 2018
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Volusia County,
Matthew M. Foxman, Judge.
O. H. Eaton, Jr., and Lori D. Loftis, of Office
of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional
Counsel, Casselberry, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Andrea K. Totten,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona
Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the revocation of Appellant’s probation. However, because the order of
revocation does not accurately reflect the trial court’s oral findings, we remand so that the
order can be corrected.
An evidentiary hearing was held with regard to allegations that Appellant violated
his probation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found and orally announced that
Appellant violated his probation by failing to report to his officer, failing to complete
substance abuse treatment, drinking alcohol heavily, and committing home-invasion
robbery as well as resisting police without violence. The court found the violations to be
willful, material, and substantial.
The court’s written order correctly stated that Appellant violated certain numbered
conditions of his probation that corresponded with failing to report to his probation officer
and failing to live without violating any law. The written order also noted that the
revocation of Appellant’s probation was, in part, for his failure to notify his probation officer
of a change in residence or employment; however, the court made no such oral
pronouncement. Additionally, the written order failed to include the trial court’s oral
findings that Appellant violated his probation by drinking heavily and not completing his
substance abuse treatment. Where the oral pronouncement of revocation conflicts with
the written order, the oral pronouncement controls. Thompson v. State, 965 So. 2d 1250,
1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (citing Cockrell v. State, 823 So. 2d 322, 323 (Fla. 2d DCA
2002)). Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Appellant’s probation and the resulting
sentence, but reverse for entry of a corrected order of revocation that accurately reflects
the oral findings of the trial court. See Desue v. State, 605 So. 2d 933, 935 (Fla. 1st DCA
1992).
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF CORRECTED ORDER.
WALLIS, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
2