Bingham v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bingham v. State

719 So. 2d 1032, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 13898, 1998 WL 771535

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 4, 1998·No. No. 98-728·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

We affirm the order revoking the appellant’s probation but remand for the trial court to reduce to writing its reasons and the evidence relied upon for the revocation in accordance with the court’s oral pronouncement. See Taramona v. State, 707 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Salvatierra v. State, 691 So.2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Bryant v. State, 686 So.2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Maddox v. State, 619 So.2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Because this will be purely a ministerial act, appellant’s presence will be unnecessary. See Culliver v. State, 693 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Boggs v. State, 557 So.2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Dunlap v. State, 405 So.2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

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

PER CURIAM

We affirm the order revoking the appellant’s probation but remand for the trial court to reduce to writing its reasons and the evidence relied upon for the revocation in accordance with the court’s oral pronouncement. See Taramona v. State, 707 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Salvatierra v. State, 691 So.2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Bryant v. State, 686 So.2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Maddox v. State, 619 So.2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Because this will be purely a ministerial act, appellant’s presence will be unnecessary. See Culliver v. State, 693 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Boggs v. State, 557 So.2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Dunlap v. State, 405 So.2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

Bingham v. State, 719 So. 2d 1032, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 13898, 1998 WL 771535 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

719 So. 2d 1032 (Bingham v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related