Jones v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DORETHA E. JONES, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________ ) Case No. 2D11-3635 Opinion filed September 21, 2012. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; Donald E. Pellecchia, Senior Judge. James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Allyn M. Giambalvo, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tonja Rene Vickers, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. MORRIS, Judge. In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Jones challenges the revocation of her probation and her five-year prison sentence for aggravated battery with a firearm. We affirm the revocation and sentence without further comment. However, we must remand the revocation order for correction as explained herein. In the revocation order, the trial court found that Jones admitted to violating conditions (1), (2), (3), (5), (10), (12), and (13) of her probation. This does not accurately reflect what occurred at the violation of probation hearing. Rather, at the hearing, Jones acknowledged violations of conditions (1), (3), and (10), but she contested the willful and substantial nature of those violations. Furthermore, the trial court specifically found that the State failed to prove violations of conditions (2), (5), (12), and (13). Accordingly, we remand to the trial court with directions that it strike from the revocation order any reference to violations of conditions (2), (5), (12), and (13). We also direct the trial court to strike the part of the order which indicates Jones admitted violating her probation. See Underwood v. State, 455 So. 2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Affirmed and remanded. NORTHCUTT and BLACK, 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.