Court Opinion

ID: 9952605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 14:04:18.70237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:04.184426
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
                       SECOND DISTRICT

                     KEANDRE DASHAWN IVORY,

                               Appellant,

                                   v.

                          STATE OF FLORIDA,

                                Appellee.

                             No. 2D23-891

                            March 20, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Pat Siracusa, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant
Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

BLACK, Judge.
     In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm without comment the revocation
of Keandre Dashawn Ivory's probation in circuit court case nos. 14-
15085-CF and 14-15318-CF and the resulting sentences. However, we

     1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
remand for the correction of a scrivener's error in the revocation order
entered in case no. 14-15318-CF.
     The affidavit of violation alleged in part that Ivory had violated
condition 21 of his probation in each case for failing to abide by his
curfew. But in case no. 14-15318-CF, condition 21 required Ivory to
submit to random drug and alcohol testing; it was condition 22 that
imposed a curfew in that case. Despite identifying the condition violated
in case no. 14-15318-CF as condition 21 rather than condition 22, the
affidavit of violation described the condition as requiring Ivory to abide by
a curfew. And it is clear that the parties and the court understood the
violation in both cases to be the failure to abide by the curfew imposed.
See Washington v. State, 228 So. 3d 707, 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("A
violation of supervision need not be alleged with the same specificity
necessary for an information charging an offense, and even a charging
document's error in citation 'shall not be ground for dismissing the count
or for a reversal of a conviction based thereon if the error or omission did
not mislead the defendant to the defendant's prejudice.' " (first citing
Hollingshead v. State, 846 So. 2d 627, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); and then
quoting McMann v. State, 954 So. 2d 90, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007))).
     Therefore, we affirm the order of revocation and sentence in each
case but remand for the circuit court to correct the revocation order
entered in case no. 14-15318-CF to reflect that Ivory was found to be in
violation of condition 22 instead of condition 21. See id.
     Affirmed; remanded.
SILBERMAN and SMITH, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

                                      2