Johnson v. State
Johnson appealed the revocation of his probation on the sole ground that the trial court failed to enter written revocation orders; while the appeal was pending, the trial court entered nunc pro tunc written orders. The Third DCA held that although the orders mooted the original issue, the orders were themselves deficient because they failed to specify the evidence relied upon and the reasons for revocation, as required by Black v. Romano and its progeny, and remanded for entry of corrected orders.
Key facts
- Johnson appealed the revocation of his probation, initially challenging the trial court's failure to enter written revocation orders.
- While the appeal was pending, the trial court entered nunc pro tunc written orders, but those orders failed to specify the evidence relied upon and the reasons for revocation.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion reinforces and clarifies the due-process requirement that written probation revocation orders must state the evidence relied upon and reasons for revocation, not merely reflect that revocation occurred. It… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.