Case ID: so2d_812/html/0575-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WHATLEY, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Walter REVEAR, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 2D00-2313.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    April 3, 2002.
    James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Anthony C. Musto, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Dale E. Tarpley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Ap-pellee.
   WHATLEY, Judge.

Walter Revear, III, appeals an order of revocation of probation. We affirm the trial court’s finding that Revear was in violation of his probation. However, we remand the case because the record reflects a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral findings and the written order of revocation. At the hearing on the violation, the trial court found Revear in violation of only condition four. However, the order of revocation of probation incorrectly states that Revear was found in violation of conditions four and eight. See Baldasare v. State, 363 So.2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (remanding order of revocation of probation where there was a discrepancy between trial court’s oral findings and the written revocation order). Therefore, we remand this cause for the purpose of striking that portion of the order of revocation of probation stating that Revear was found in violation of condition eight. The order is otherwise affirmed.

Revear need not be present for the correction.

SALCINES, and COVINGTON, JJ„ Concur.