Tirrell v. State

WELLS, Judge. David' Allan Tirrell appeals from a probation revocation order séntencing him to 16 months in prison. Tirrell argues that the trial court erred in revoking his probation (1) solely on Tirrell’s admission that he was arrested for a number of crimes in violation of the terms of his probation; (2) for according him with less credit for time served than he was entitled to and (3) because the written revocation order did not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. We find no merit in Tirrell’s argument that his probation was revoked solely on his admission that he was arrested for a number of crimes while on probation or on his claim that he was not accorded credit for all of the time served to which he was due. We do, however, find that the written revocation order which concludes that Tirrell violated condition 1 of the probation order does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement that Tirrell did not violate that condition and vacate that portion of the order. 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.’ Salvatierra v. State, 691 So.2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (citing Narvaez v. State, 674 So.2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Snell v. State, 658 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)).”). The order on appeal is, therefore, affirmed in all other respects. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.