Brewer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brewer v. State

99 So. 3d 519, 2011 WL 2555419, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10175

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 29, 2011

DocketNo. 3D10-1160

StatusPublished

This text of 99 So. 3d 519 (Brewer 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

Brewer v. State, 99 So. 3d 519, 2011 WL 2555419, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10175 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, Judge.

Earl Brewer appeals from an order modifying his probation to require electronic monitoring. Because the transcript of the modification hearing clearly confirms that the trial court intended to apply section 948.063 of the Florida Statutes and not the Jessica Lunsford Act as recited in the court’s written order, we reverse and remand for correction of the order modifying probation to correctly reflect the trial court’s oral ruling. See Stark v. State, 712 So.2d 454, 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (finding that the written order of probation should match the trial court’s oral pronouncements); Reiter v. State, 674 So.2d 189, 190-91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (finding that the “written [probation] order must be modified to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement”). The order on appeal is otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

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

WELLS, Judge.

Earl Brewer appeals from an order modifying his probation to require electronic monitoring. Because the transcript of the modification hearing clearly confirms that the trial court intended to apply section 948.063 of the Florida Statutes and not the Jessica Lunsford Act as recited in the court’s written order, we reverse and remand for correction of the order modifying probation to correctly reflect the trial court’s oral ruling. See Stark v. State, 712 So.2d 454, 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (finding that the written order of probation should match the trial court’s oral pronouncements); Reiter v. State, 674 So.2d 189, 190-91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (finding that the “written [probation] order must be modified to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement”). The order on appeal is otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 So. 3d 519, 2011 WL 2555419, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brewer-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack