Slocum v. State
The Third DCA affirmed revocation of Slocum's probation based on his unauthorized possession of a weapon, applying settled constructive-possession principles. The court also addressed a discrepancy between the trial court's oral pronouncement (which did not find a new-law violation proven) and its later written order (which did), holding that although the oral pronouncement generally controls, the proper vehicle to correct such a conflict is a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), not direct appeal absent preservation.
Key facts
- Slocum was on probation with a condition prohibiting possession of weapons; he was found to have unauthorized possession of a weapon, leading to probation revocation proceedings in the trial court.
- The trial court orally pronounced revocation but later issued a written order containing different findings regarding whether a new-law violation was proven, creating a conflict between the two documents.
- +2 more key facts with a free 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.