Jerrett Swaford v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJune 2, 2021
Docket2D19-4601
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
JERRETT SWAFORD,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D19-4601
June 2, 2021
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hendry County; James D. Sloan,
Judge.
Robert David Malove of The Law Office of Robert David Malove, P.A.,
Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and C. Todd
Chapman, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Jerrett Swaford appeals the revocation of his probation and
resulting sentence of 150 months in prison followed by ten years of
sex offender probation for the underlying crime of sexual activity
with a child. We affirm the revocation and resulting sentence
without further comment. However, during the pendency of this
appeal, this court requested supplementation of the record with the
order of revocation, which was entered after the notice of appeal
had been filed. Upon receipt of the order, several scrivener's errors
were identified: (1) the order improperly states that Swaford
admitted to violating his probation, but this is inaccurate as
Swaford contested the allegations at a violation of probation
hearing; (2) the order improperly refers to violations of conditions
twenty-one and thirty, but it is clear based on the substantive
descriptions of those conditions in the order and based on the
transcript of the hearing that the trial court meant to refer to
violations of conditions twenty and twenty-nine; and (3) the order
improperly states that Swaford was found in violation of condition
twenty-nine (referred to as condition thirty in the order), even
though the transcript from the hearing reflects that the trial court
declined to find him in violation of that condition. Thus although
we have concluded that no reversible error occurred, we sua sponte
remand for correction of these scrivener's errors for purposes of
2
accuracy. See Shuey v. State, 950 So. 2d 1285, 1285 (Fla. 5th DCA
2007). Swaford need not be present for the correction. See Royce
v. State, 141 So. 3d 1278, 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
Because we are remanding for correction of scrivener's errors,
we note one other problem reflected in the record before this court:
the trial court entered a second judgment form upon revocation of
probation. "Duplicative adjudications of guilt after revocation of
probation or community control are superfluous, are unauthorized,
and can cause undue confusion in future proceedings." West v.
State, 232 So. 3d 522, 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (quoting Butler v.
State, 195 So. 3d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)); see also Jackson
v. State, 56 So. 3d 65, 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). We note, however,
that while these types of duplicative judgments should be avoided,
this issue was not raised on appeal.
Affirmed and remanded for correction of scrivener's errors.
CASANUEVA, KELLY, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
3