Bloodworth v. State
This text of 672 So. 2d 56 (Bloodworth 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
Frederick BLOODWORTH, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and David P. Gauldin, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, and Frederick Bloodworth, pro se, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and James W. Rogers, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the revocation of appellant's probation and the sentence imposed thereon, but direct the trial court, on remand, to enter a written revocation order setting forth the conditions of probation which appellant was found to have violated. See McQuitter v. State, 622 So.2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (when trial court orally pronounces conditions of which probationer has been found in violation, but fails to place them in written form, remand is necessary for entry of order conforming to oral pronouncement).
MINER, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
672 So. 2d 56, 1996 WL 143610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloodworth-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.