Beau Daniels v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Beau Daniels v. State

200 So. 3d 195, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10456, 2016 WL 3654429

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 8, 2016

Docket5D15-3745

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 200 So. 3d 195 (Beau Daniels 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 So. 3d 195, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10456, 2016 WL 3654429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beau-daniels-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack