Council v. State (206 So.3d 813, 2016)

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his revocation of probation on two grounds: Whether the trial court erred in failing to enter a written order revoking probation, and whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing sentences that violate the statutory maximum in his related case, Council v. State, 1D15-4382. Because Appellant is being resentenced pursuant to our holding in 1D15-4382, we do not need to decide whether his sentences are illegal.

As to the first issue, under this court’s holding in Fowler v. State, 79 So.3d 868, 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), “[a] formal, written order of revocation is required even when the record clearly reflects the trial court’s intention to revoke probation and its reasons for doing so.” Here, because the trial court failed to enter a written order specifying the probationary conditions Appellant violated which justified revoking his probation, we reverse for the trial court to enter a formal, written order of revocation, after Appellant is resen-tenced.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.