Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed March 6, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-633

Lower Tribunal No. F19-1224

________________

Lazaro Oyanse Valdes,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ramiro C. 

Areces, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Andrew Stanton, Assistant 

Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, MILLER and GORDO, JJ. 

GORDO, J.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR
2

Lazaro Oyanse Valdes (“Valdes”) appeals a final order of revocation of 

community control. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(1)(D). 

Based on the State’s appropriate confession of error and our own 

independent review of the record, we reverse and remand with instructions 

that the written order of revocation be corrected to conform to the trial court’s 

oral pronouncement without inclusion of the uncharged violations. 

The affidavit of violation of probation, as amended, alleged that Valdes 

committed three new law violations: armed carjacking, grand theft of a 

vehicle in the third degree and resisting an officer without violence. At the 

revocation hearing, Valdes contested whether the carjacking was “armed.” 

After argument, the trial court revoked Valdes’ probation. In orally 

pronouncing its findings, the trial court stated that Valdes violated his 

probation by committing three criminal offenses: carjacking, grand theft of a 

vehicle in the third degree and resisting an officer without violence. The 

written order of revocation, however, specified that Valdes violated condition 

(1) by failing to undergo a mental health evaluation; condition (1) by failing 

to successfully complete or remain in drug/alcohol treatment; condition (2) 

by failing to make restitution payments; condition (4) by possessing, carrying, 

or owning any weapon or firearm; condition (15) by failing to report to the 

community control officer; condition (16) by failing to remain confined to his 
3

approved residence; and condition (19) by failing to submit to electronic 

monitoring (three times). It also stated that Valdes violated condition (5) by 

being arrested for the criminal offense of armed carjacking. 

The State commendably concedes that the trial court’s written order of 

revocation does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement as it 

includes uncharged violations and reflects that Valdes committed an armed 

carjacking rather than a carjacking. Valdes does not contest the sufficiency 

of evidence for the trial court’s findings of the three new law violations. 

Because the order of revocation suggests that Valdes committed violations 

which were not addressed in the court’s factual findings, we reverse and 

remand for the entry of an order consistent with the court’s oral 

pronouncement. See Jackson v. State, 369 So. 3d 746, 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 

2023) (“Revocation of probation based on an uncharged violation deprives 

the defendant of due process and constitutes fundamental error.” (quoting 

Cohen v. State, 171 So. 3d 179, 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015))); Laffitte v. State, 

16 So. 3d 315, 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“A written order of probation 

revocation must conform to the court’s oral pronouncement at a defendant’s 

probation revocation hearing.” (quoting Salvatierra v. State, 691 So. 2d 32, 

32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997))); Miller v. State, 328 So. 3d 1115, 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2021) (“Where the trial court’s oral pronouncement and written revocation 
4

order conflict, the written revocation order must be corrected to comport with 

the oral pronouncement.”); Musser v. State, 108 So. 3d 670, 671 (Fla. 2d 

DCA 2013) (“[B]ecause the order of revocation suggests that [Appellant] 

committed violations which were not addressed in the court’s factual 

findings, we reverse and remand for the entry of an order consistent with the 

court’s oral pronouncement.”). 

Reversed and remanded with instructions.