Arnone v. State, 204 So. 3d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). · Go Syfert
Search
Arnone v. State, 204 So. 3d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: JIMEAL SMITH v. STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2018-04-04)
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017 2021 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) JIMEAL SMITH v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
However, in those cases where the trial court orally pronounces a reason under this section for its finding that an individual poses a danger to the community, but fails to provide a written order, then “the proper remedy is to affirm the revocation of the defendant’s probation, but remand for entry of a written order conforming to the court’s oral pronouncement.” Arnone v. State, 204 So. 3d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Timothy Brown v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Arnone v. State, 204 So.3d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citing Martin v. State, 87 So.3d 813, 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Bell v. State, 150 So.3d 1214, 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)).
cited Cited "see" Walter Morris Hart v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arnone v. State, 204 So. 3d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
cited Cited "see" Juan Henriquez, Jr. v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arnone v. State, 204 So. 3d 556 , 557–58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
cited Cited "see" Alejandro Borges v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arnone v. State, 204 So. 3d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
cited Cited "see" Juan Henriquez, Jr. v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arnone v. State, 204 So. 3d 556 , 557–58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
discussed Cited "see" Dunn v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arnone v. State , 204 So. 3d 556 , 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ("[W]here a court orally pronounces a reason, consistent with one or more of the factors listed under section 948.06(8)(e)1[.] for its finding that the defendant, as a violent felony offender of special concern, poses a danger to the community, but fails to provide written reasons for its finding, the proper remedy is to affirm the revocation of the defendant's probation, but remand for entry of a written order conforming to the court's oral pronouncement." (citing Bell v. State , 150 So. 3d 1214 , 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ; Martin…
discussed Cited "see" Dunn v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arnone v. State , 204 So. 3d 556 , 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ("[W]here a court orally pronounces a reason, consistent with one or more of the factors listed under section 948.06(8)(e)1[.] for its finding that the defendant, as a violent felony offender of special concern, poses a danger to the community, but fails to provide written reasons for its finding, the proper remedy is to affirm the revocation of the defendant's probation, but remand for entry of a written order conforming to the court's oral pronouncement." (citing Bell v. State , 150 So. 3d 1214 , 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ; Martin…
discussed Cited "see" TERRY MOORE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arnone v. State, 204 So. 3d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (finding the defendant preserved his arguments on appeal as to the VFOSC finding by filing a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion).
discussed Cited "see" TERRY MOORE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arnone v. State, 204 So. 3d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (finding the defendant preserved his arguments on appeal as to the VFOSC finding by filing a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion).
cited Cited "see" TONY MOORE HICKMAN v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arnone v. State, 204 So. 3d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
cited Cited "see" Hickman v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arnone v. State , 204 So.3d 556 , 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
cited Cited "see" Hickman v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arnone v. State , 204 So.3d 556 , 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
cited Cited "see" Oscar Glenn v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arnone v. State, 204 So.3d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Bell v. State, 150 *1011 So.3d 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); Martin v. State, 87 So.3d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sean Wells v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Bell v. State, 150 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); see also Arnone v. State, 204 So. 3d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (“[W]here a court orally pronounces a reason, consistent with one or more of the factors listed under section 948.06(8)(e)1., for its finding that the defendant, as a violent felony offender of special concern, poses a danger to the community, but fails to provide written reasons for its finding, the proper remedy is to affirm the revocation of the defendant’s probation, but remand for entry of a written order conforming to the court’s oral pronouncement.”).
Scott ARNONE
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 4D15-3440.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Nov 16, 2016.
204 So. 3d 556
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ellen Griffin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant., Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allen R. Geesey, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Gerber, Levine.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published
GERBER, J.

The defendant appeals his sentence of ten years in prison after the circuit court revoked his probation and designated him as a dangerous violent felony offender of special concern (“VFOSC”). He raises four arguments: (1) the evidence at sentencing was insufficient to support the VFOSC designation; (2) the court failed to conduct a “danger hearing” and make written findings as to whether the defendant posed a danger to the community; (3) the court improperly assessed community sanction violation points on the defendant’s scoresheet; and (4) the defendant properly preserved these issues by filing a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion.

We affirm on every argument, except one. The State properly concedes that the court failed to make written findings as to how the defendant posed a danger to the community. See § 948.06(8)(e)l, Fla. Stat. (2011) (“If the court, after conducting the hearing required by paragraph (d), determines that a violent felony offender of special concern has committed a violation of probation or community control other than a failure to pay costs, fines, or restitution, the court shall ,.. [mjake written findings as to whether or not the violent felony offender of special concern poses a danger to the community ....”) (emphasis added).

However, where a court orally pronounces a reason, consistent with one or more of the factors listed under section 948.06(8)(e)l, for its finding that the defendant, as a violent felony offender of special concern, poses a danger to the community, but fails to provide written reasons for its finding, the proper remedy is to affirm the revocation of the defendant’s probation, but remand for entry of a written order conforming to the court’s oral pronouncement. Martin v. State, 87 So.3d 813, 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Bell v. State, 150 So.3d 1214, 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).

Consistent with our sister courts’ conclusions in Martin and Bell, we affirm the revocation of the defendant’s probation and' the resulting sentence, but remand for entry of a written order conforming to the court’s oral finding that the defendant, as a violent felony offender of special concern, poses a danger to the community. Assuming the record provides the information allowing the court to enter such a written[*558] order, it shall not be necessary for the court to conduct a further hearing.

Affirmed but remanded for entry of written order.

MAY and LEVINE, JJ., concur.