Landon Hernandez, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D17-1636
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 29, 2018.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Lower Tribunal No. 14-22651
Before SCALES, LUCK, and LINDSEY, JJ.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Diane V. Ward, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Gabrielle Raemy Charest-Turken, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
ON CONFESSION OF ERROR
PER CURIAM.
Landon Hernandez appeals the trial court‘s order revoking his probation. Based upon a review of the record before us and the State‘s appropriate confession of error, we affirm the revocation but remand with instructions that the written order of revocation be corrected to conform to the trial court‘s oral pronouncements made at the probation revocation hearing.
Following a probation revocation hearing held on June 21, 2017, the trial court orally pronounced that it was revoking Hernandez‘s probation because the State
On July 11, 2017, the trial court entered its written order revoking Hernandez‘s probation. The written probation revocation order, however, does not conform to the oral pronouncements the trial court made at the revocation hearing. “A written order of probation revocation must conform to the court‘s oral pronouncement at a defendant‘s probation revocation hearing.” Laffitte v. State, 16 So. 3d 315, 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (quoting Salvatierra v. State, 691 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)). In addition to the four violations the trial court orally pronounced had been proven by the State, the written revocation order also reflects that Hernandez committed the three probation violations that the trial court specifically declined to revoke probation for—committing a battery (condition 5), failing to pay restitution (condition 2), and failing to complete his community service hours (condition 8). Additionally, the written revocation order also reflects that Hernandez committed the two probation violations that the trial court made no finding on—improperly exhibiting a dangerous weapon or firearm (condition 5) and failing to report to his probation office (condition 1).
Indeed, the State‘s confession of error concedes as much and requests that the matter be remanded to the trial court for the sole purpose of correcting the written revocation order in order to conform to the trial court‘s oral pronouncement. We agree. See Gonzalez v. State, 217 So. 3d 235, 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (remanding with instructions “for correction of the written order of revocation so that it conforms to the court‘s oral pronouncement.“); see also Jones v. State, 686 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (citing Cushion v. State, 637 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)). As such, we remand for correction of the written order for revocation so that it conforms to the trial court‘s oral pronouncement.1
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
