Pierce v. State, 150 So. 3d 1207

In July 2012 Pierce pleaded guilty to four felonies and one misdemeanor and was adjudicated guilty; the court imposed concurrent probation (48 months for felonies; 12 months for the misdemeanor).
An order of probation was entered July 23, 2012.
In July 2013 the Department of Corrections filed an affidavit alleging nine probation violations (including alleged new offenses and multiple violations of conditions).
On October 11, 2013 the trial court held an evidentiary revocation hearing, found violations, orally pronounced revocation, repeated adjudications of guilt, and pronounced prison and probation terms.
The court did not enter a formal order revoking probation; instead it entered duplicate judgments of conviction dated October 11, 2013 (duplicating the July 2012 judgments) and then entered sentences; the Department accepted custody based on those commitment papers.
The district court concluded the trial court had authority to revoke probation but lacked authority to enter duplicate judgments and to sentence without a formal order of revocation; the duplicate judgments and amended sentences were reversed and the case remanded for a proper revocation order and sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court may enter duplicate judgments of conviction after prior adjudication	Pierce: duplicate judgments are unauthorized; sentencing requires proper revocation order	State: entry of judgments and sentences following oral pronouncement was permissible for commitment	Court: Duplicate judgments were unauthorized; second judgments reversed
Whether sentencing can occur without a formal written order of revocation	Pierce: sentencing without an order of revocation invalid	State: oral pronouncement sufficed to effect revocation and sentence	Court: Without entry of an order of revocation court lacked authority to impose sentence; reversal and remand required
Whether evidence supported revocation based on alleged violations	Pierce: challenges sufficiency or scope of alleged violations	State: affidavit alleged multiple violations (primarily Condition 5) sufficient to support revocation	Court: There was a basis to find violations (Condition 5 violations sufficient); revocation authorized if properly entered
Whether commitment paperwork/Forms comply with DOC requirements and contributed to error	Pierce: clerical/commitment form caused improper acceptance by DOC	State: form used caused Department to accept prisoner despite lack of revocation order	Court: Noncompliant commitment documents contributed to the problem; remanded for proper order and sentencing

Dawkins v. State, 936 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (rejecting practice of entering multiple judgments for same offense)
Badger v. State, 23 So. 3d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (noting circuit's use of noncompliant forms)
Johnson v. State, 17 So. 3d 1290 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (criticizing improper procedural forms)
Bush v. State, 135 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (noting similar form problems in other circuits)
Kiburis v. State, 18 So. 3d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (addressing form and procedural compliance)
Jackson v. State, 56 So. 3d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (concurrence discussing DOC commitment form contributing to duplication problem)