Case Name: Michael Steven RUIZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2005-06-17
Citations: 908 So. 2d 508
Docket Number: No. 5D04-3033
Parties: Michael Steven RUIZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: PALMER, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 908
Pages: 508–510

Head Matter:
Michael Steven RUIZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 5D04-3033.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
June 17, 2005.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 8, 2005.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mary G. Jolley, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

Opinion:
ORFINGER, J.
Michael Steven Ruiz appeals the trial court's order revoking his probation. He contends that the affidavit, alleging the violation of probation, was fundamentally defective because it was not sworn to before a person authorized to administer oaths. In Smartmays v. State, 901 So.2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA Apr.29, 2005), this Court recently decided this same issue adversely to the position that Ruiz advocates. Smartmays, while recognizing that the affidavit alleging a violation of probation failed to be properly sworn to, concluded that such non-compliance, while error, was not the type of defect that is considered fundamental, particularly in a revocation of probation context. Consequently, because the issue was not raised in the trial court, it was waived.
Ruiz further contends that there is insufficient evidence that he possessed illegal drugs in violation of his probation. Having carefully considered the entire record, including the testimony of the arresting officer, the field testing done on the contraband, and Ruiz's admissions, we find adequate competent evidence supporting the trial court's conclusion that Ruiz violated his probation. See Higgins v. State, 899 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Mackerley v. State, 900 So.2d 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The evidence upon which to predicate the revocation of probation must be sufficient to satisfy the conscience of the court that a condition has been violated. Osta v. State, 880 So.2d 804, 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). That standard was certainly met here.
We do note that the revocation order needs correction to reflect the specific condition of probation that Ruiz violated. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Ruiz's probation and the sentence imposed, but remand for the entry of a corrected revocation order detailing the specific condition of probation that Ruiz violated.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
PALMER, J., concurs.
TORPY, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion.