Beau Daniels v. State

200 So. 3d 195, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10456, 2016 WL 3654429
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 8, 2016·No. 5D15-3745·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment and sentences imposed by the trial court following the revocation of Appellant’s drug offender probation, but we find it necessary to remand this case with directions that the court correct a scrivener’s error in the order .revoking probation to reflect that *196 Appellant admitted to violating condition five of his probation. The revocation order inadvertently states that Appellant violated conditions one and two of his probation; however, he was never charged with violating these two conditions. See generally Romine v. State, 184 So.3d 1172, 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (finding that remand was appropriate to correct technical error in order revoking probation to clarify sole condition of probation that defendant admitted to violating).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct scrivener’s error.

COHEN, WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

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

Beau Daniels v. State, 200 So. 3d 195, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10456, 2016 WL 3654429 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

200 So. 3d 195 (Beau Daniels v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Frances Annette Gonzalez v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
Garcia v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024
MELISSA SUE BAILOR v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024
Eustace v. State
242 So. 3d 1205 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Kyle Eustace v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018