JASON LAVELL NICKOLAS, v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JASON LAVELL NICKOLAS, Appellant, v. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D10-6231 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed August 9, 2011. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Dedee S. Costello, Judge. Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee; Jason L. Nickolas, pro se, Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. In this Anders appeal, we affirm Appellant s judgment and sentence, but remand for the trial court to correct the order revoking his probation. Although the Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). State alleged that Appellant violated his probation by committing five new law offenses, the lower court found that the evidence supported revocation based only on the offense of resisting an officer with violence. The revocation order provides, however, that Appellant violated the conditions of his probation by committing all five offenses. We, therefore, remand for the trial court to correct the revocation order. See Washington v. State, 37 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming a judgment and sentence in an Anders appeal but remanding for the court to correct a revocation order reflecting the appropriate condition violated); Leggs v. State, 27 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming, in an Anders appeal, the appellant's judgment and sentence, but remanding with directions that the trial court enter an order specifying the conditions of probation violated). Appellant need not be present. See Baldwin v. State, 855 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (remanding for entry of a written revocation order conforming to the oral pronouncement in an Anders appeal). AFFIRMED and REMANDED. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR. 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.