Abner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Abner v. State

783 So. 2d 1086, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13927, 2000 WL 1629973

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 1, 2000

DocketNo. 3D99-3067

StatusPublished

This text of 783 So. 2d 1086 (Abner v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abner v. State, 783 So. 2d 1086, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13927, 2000 WL 1629973 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Booker T. Abner appeals from an order of revocation of probation and sentence. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Abner violated the conditions of his probation. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of probation. However, we must remand this cause to the trial court with directions that it correct the written order of revocation so that it conforms with the court’s oral pronouncements made during the probation revocation hearing. See Masis v. State, 758 So.2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Additionally, based upon the state’s confession of error, on remand the trial judge is directed to determine whether Abner was adversely affected by the 1995 sentencing guidelines, and if so, to resentence him pursuant to the 1994 guidelines. See Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000); Diaz v. State, 752 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Affirmed in part; remanded with directions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Booker T. Abner appeals from an order of revocation of probation and sentence. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Abner violated the conditions of his probation. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of probation. However, we must remand this cause to the trial court with directions that it correct the written order of revocation so that it conforms with the court’s oral pronouncements made during the probation revocation hearing. See Masis v. State, 758 So.2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Additionally, based upon the state’s confession of error, on remand the trial judge is directed to determine whether Abner was adversely affected by the 1995 sentencing guidelines, and if so, to resentence him pursuant to the 1994 guidelines. See Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000); Diaz v. State, 752 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Affirmed in part; remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

783 So. 2d 1086, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13927, 2000 WL 1629973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abner-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack