195 So. 3d 1147
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Appellant Robin C. Butler appealed revocation of probation in two Polk County cases (2011CF-009406; 2012CF-003342) and conviction/sentences after jury trial in case 2014CF-003581.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief identifying possible issues: suppression motion, motion for judgment of acquittal (2014CF-003581), and sentences in all three cases; Butler filed a pro se brief challenging denial of suppression in 2014CF-003581.
- The Second District conducted an independent review, affirmed the 2014CF-003581 judgment and sentences without comment, and affirmed revocation of probation but found record errors in the revocation orders.
- The written revocation order failed to specify which probation conditions (other than condition five—new law violation) were found violated, contained inconsistent language (e.g., "Admits VOP" though Butler did not admit), and included unauthorized duplicate judgments.
- The court held that a violation of condition five alone would have supported revocation; it therefore affirmed the revocations/substantive sentences but reversed the unauthorized adjudications and remanded for corrected revocation orders that comport with the oral ruling and specify the violated condition(s).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of written revocation order | Butler argued the revocation order was defective and unclear (pro se suppression issue as well) | State argued revocation and sentences were proper as reflected by oral findings | Court: Written order was deficient—must identify violated condition(s); remanded to correct order but substantive revocation and sentences affirmed because violation of condition five sufficed |
| Entry of new judgments after revocation | Butler implied duplicative judgments improper | State treated judgments as part of revocation disposition | Court: Entering new/adjudicative judgments after probation revocation (when defendant already adjudicated) is unauthorized and superfluous; reversed those judgments and remanded to eliminate duplication |
| Sufficiency of proof for revocation | Butler contested factual basis (and challenged suppression re: 2014 trial) | State relied on trial court's oral finding that Butler willfully and substantially violated condition five (new law violation) | Court: Oral finding that condition five was willfully and substantially violated is sufficient to support revocation; revocation affirmed on that ground |
| Anders procedures/appealability | Appellate counsel followed Anders; Butler filed pro se brief | State had no objection to Anders procedure | Court: Anders process followed correctly; independent review conducted and affirmed trial convictions and sentences in 2014CF-003581 |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. State, 150 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (duplicative adjudications after revocation are unauthorized and may cause confusion)
- Jackson v. State, 56 So. 3d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (judgment on VOP enters only when adjudication was previously withheld)
- Dawkins v. State, 936 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (duplicative post-revocation adjudications are improper)
- Smith v. State, 940 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (revocation order must set forth violated condition(s))
- Cato v. State, 845 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (revocation order must identify conditions violated)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures required when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
- In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991) (Florida procedure requiring opportunity for pro se brief after Anders submission)