Israel Chirino v. the State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledSeptember 30, 2020
Docket3D20-0283
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed September 30, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-0283
Lower Tribunal No. 10-31879
________________
Israel Chirino,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Andrea R.
Wolfson, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public
Defender, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael W. Mervine, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, HENDON and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Israel Chirino appeals the circuit court’s order revoking his probation. He
argues that the court’s written order of revocation is inconsistent with the court’s
oral pronouncement. See Salvatierra v. State, 691 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“A
written order of probation revocation must conform to the court’s oral
pronouncement at a defendant’s probation revocation hearing.”).
The written order of revocation includes a violation of probation for drug
possession based on a positive drug test. However, at the revocation of probation
hearing, the State agreed it was not going forward with the drug possession
allegation. The State concedes error. Nevertheless, as the State properly points out,
Chirino did not preserve this argument with either a contemporaneous objection or
a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion. See Burney v. State, 114 So. 3d
455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s order of revocation of probation,
but without prejudice to Chirino filing a legally sufficient rule 3.800 motion in the
circuit court raising the above inconsistency in the written order.
Affirmed without prejudice.
2