JASLEN MICHEL vs THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 4, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D18-1910 Lower Tribunal Nos. 12-31964B &13-14746 ________________ Jaslen Michel, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Stacy D. Glick, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Joanne Diez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM. Appellant, Jaslen Michel, challenges the judgments and sentences entered upon the revocation of his probation for three counts of armed robbery with a weapon, two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm, one count of burglary of a dwelling, and one count of grand theft. On appeal, Michel raises several issues, but we discern merit in only one. See Chamberlain v. State, 881 So. 2d 1087, 1097-98 (Fla. 2004) (finding fact that trial judge formed a fixed opinion as to the culpability of a co-defendant insufficient to warrant disqualification); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(c); Rosario v. State, 406 So. 2d 106, 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (“[I]t is obvious that the defendant’s commission of the substantive crime alone was sufficient to support and in fact was responsible for the conclusions reached below.”) (citations omitted). As the written order of probation revocation does not conform with the court’s oral pronouncement at the time of the revocation hearing, we reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to enter a written order which so conforms. See Laffitte v. State, 16 So. 3d 315, 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“A written order of probation revocation must conform to the court’s oral pronouncement at a defendant’s probation revocation hearing.”) (quoting Salvatierra v. State, 691 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)). Reversed and remanded. 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.
