Romano v. State, 205 So. 3d 828

Tony Romano appealed the revocation of his probation for two counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor and the resulting sentence of 13 years' prison concurrent on each count followed by five years' probation.
During the appeal Romano filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motion asserting (1) the trial court failed to orally pronounce a special condition requiring him to pay for random drug screening and (2) the revocation order inaccurately stated he admitted the violation rather than being found in violation after an evidentiary hearing.
The trial court granted the 3.800(b) motion outside the 60-day jurisdictional period, rendering that order a nullity under controlling precedent.
The appellate court affirmed revocation and the sentences but remanded to correct the revocation order to reflect that Romano was found in violation after an evidentiary hearing.
The court rejected Romano’s procedural challenge to strike the unpronounced special condition because he raised only a procedural objection under 3.800(b) and had an avenue to raise substantive challenge later.
The court flagged a potential sentencing issue: the combined prison-plus-probation terms exceeded the 15-year statutory maximum for second-degree felonies, and Romano may pursue relief via a rule 3.800(a) motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether special condition requiring Romano to pay for random drug screening must be stricken because it was not orally pronounced	Romano argued the unpaid testing condition was not orally pronounced and thus must be stricken	State argued procedural challenge under 3.800(b) is insufficient to strike the condition; substantive challenge required	Court rejected striking condition—procedural objection alone insufficient; Romano not entitled to relief on that ground
Whether revocation order must be corrected to show Romano was found in violation after an evidentiary hearing rather than admitted violation	Romano argued the order mischaracterized the basis for revocation and should be corrected	State did not dispute that the order's language was incorrect and should be corrected	Court ordered correction: remand for entry of an order reflecting a finding after an evidentiary hearing
Whether the imposed sentences (prison plus probation) exceed the statutory maximum for second‑degree felonies	Romano did not preserve the claim on appeal but raised it for future relief	State defended the sentences as imposed; court noted sentencing issues were unpreserved on appeal	Court affirmed sentences but noted possible illegality (exceeding 15‑year maximum) and allowed Romano to pursue a 3.800(a) motion

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes procedure for appellate counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
Williams v. State, 67 So. 3d 249 (trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant a 3.800(b) motion after 60 days)
Ladson v. State, 955 So. 2d 612 (procedural 3.800(b) challenge insufficient to strike unpronounced special condition absent substantive challenge)
Bess v. State, 158 So. 3d 711 (order correcting basis of revocation when erroneous language is used)
McNeil v. State, 183 So. 3d 1107 (similar authority requiring corrected revocation orders)
Cillo v. State, 913 So. 2d 1233 (prison plus community supervision portions together cannot exceed statutory maximum for a second-degree felony)