Ballester v. State
This text of 779 So. 2d 624 (Ballester 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.
Opinion
Julio BALLESTER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Anthony C. Musto, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jenny S. Sieg, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
GREEN, Judge.
We affirm Julio Ballester's judgment and sentence which resulted from the revocation of his probation.
The trial court's written order recites that revocation was based on the violation of condition seven, proscribing the use of narcotics, and condition five, a new law violation, to wit: petit theft. However, the court's oral pronouncement referenced only condition seven.
This matter was not addressed to the trial judge. Because this error is nonprejudicial to Ballester, we find it is not fundamental error. See Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000); Thomas v. State, 763 So.2d 316 (Fla.2000); Jelks v. State, 770 So.2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The error has therefore been waived.
Affirmed.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
779 So. 2d 624, 2001 WL 201814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballester-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.