Case Name: David H. WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-05-22
Citations: 696 So. 2d 869
Docket Number: No. 95-2982
Parties: David H. WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: MINER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 696
Pages: 869–869

Head Matter:
David H. WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 95-2982.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
May 22, 1997.
Rehearing Denied July 14, 1997.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Jamie Spivey, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
David H. Wilson, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and James W. Rogers, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm the revocation of appellant's probation, but conclude that remand is required for entry of an amended revocation order specifying, in conformance with the trial court's oral pronouncement, the conditions of probation appellant was found to have violated. See McKinney v. State, 624 So.2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Hogwood v. State, 615 So.2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Appellant need not be present for this merely clerical correction. Bontrager v. State, 678 So.2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
We have considered the issues raised in appellant's pro se briefs, and conclude that none of those matters warrant reversal under the circumstances. However, this disposition is without prejudice to appellant's right to pursue his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel by motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
MINER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.