JUANITA TAYLOR vs STATE OF FLORIDA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 5D23-1789 LT Case No. 2021-CF-003260 _____________________________ JUANITA TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County. Anthony M. Tatti, Judge. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Victoria Rose Cordero, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alyssa M. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. December 29, 2023 SOUD, J. In this Anders * appeal, Appellant Juanita Taylor appeals her judgment and sentence following her violation of probation. We * See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). affirm. However, we remand this matter to the trial court for correction of a scrivener’s error in the order revoking probation. See Carmona v. State, 363 So. 3d 1115 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023). More specifically, the order revoking probation identifies Taylor violated three conditions: condition 2 (Failure to pay cost of supervision), condition 3 (Changing residence without first procuring the consent of the probation officer—absconding), and condition 8 (Failure to work diligently at lawful occupation, advise employer of probation status, support dependents). However, the affidavit of violation of probation identifies, inter alia, violation of special condition 8 by failing to complete 100 hours of community service. Nowhere is it alleged Taylor violated standard condition 8. The totality of the record before us, including the transcript of the hearing during which Taylor admitted her violation of probation, makes clear it was special condition 8 she acknowledged having violated. Accordingly, this case is AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS to correct the scrivener’s error in the order revoking probation to properly identify violation of special condition 8 (Failure to complete 100 hours of community service). It is so ordered. BOATWRIGHT and KILBANE, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
