Ard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ard v. State

498 So. 2d 616, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2543, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11231

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 5, 1986

DocketNo. BJ-253

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 498 So. 2d 616 (Ard 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

Ard v. State, 498 So. 2d 616, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2543, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11231 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, Judge.

This court has twice ordered the parties to supplement the record with missing orders of revocation of probation and the supporting affidavits. The parties have managed to submit one of the missing orders (Cases No. 83-1254, 83-1281 and 83-2693) but have yet to produce the third order (Cases No. 82-1980 and 82-1981) and the underlying affidavits for these two orders. Rather than waste more of this court’s judicial resources in attempting to complete this record, we remand to the trial court to revisit all three orders of revocation of probation. The court announced probation was being revoked solely because of appellant’s early 1985 bad check convictions. The written orders before the court and, we presume, the still missing order refer to other breaches of the conditions of probation. The trial court indicated these breaches were not important to it in revoking probation. Thus, the trial court is to insure that its orders of revocation of probation conform to its announced findings. The final order should also reflect that appellant pled not guilty to the charges of violation of probation. The appellants’ other issue on appeal is without merit.

ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

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

BARFIELD, Judge.

This court has twice ordered the parties to supplement the record with missing orders of revocation of probation and the supporting affidavits. The parties have managed to submit one of the missing orders (Cases No. 83-1254, 83-1281 and 83-2693) but have yet to produce the third order (Cases No. 82-1980 and 82-1981) and the underlying affidavits for these two orders. Rather than waste more of this court’s judicial resources in attempting to complete this record, we remand to the trial court to revisit all three orders of revocation of probation. The court announced probation was being revoked solely because of appellant’s early 1985 bad check convictions. The written orders before the court and, we presume, the still missing order refer to other breaches of the conditions of probation. The trial court indicated these breaches were not important to it in revoking probation. Thus, the trial court is to insure that its orders of revocation of probation conform to its announced findings. The final order should also reflect that appellant pled not guilty to the charges of violation of probation. The appellants’ other issue on appeal is without merit.

ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

498 So. 2d 616, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2543, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ard-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack