Brule v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brule v. State

692 So. 2d 927, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2740, 1997 WL 134342

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 26, 1997

DocketNo. 96-04763

StatusPublished

This text of 692 So. 2d 927 (Brule 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

Brule v. State, 692 So. 2d 927, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2740, 1997 WL 134342 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Ace Edmond Brule, seeks review of the summary denial of his postcon-viction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.860. We find merit only in Brule’s allegation that special condition of probation (d), disallowing early termination of probation, was not orally pronounced at sentencing. The trial court denied the motion without attaching any documentation which would refute this claim raised by Brule. See Kirkland v, State, 633 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Rogers v. State, 611 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In all other respects the trial court’s order is affirmed.

Accordingly we reverse. On remand, should the trial court again deny the motion, it must attach portions of the record which refute Brule’s claim. See Becton v. State, 668 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Ace Edmond Brule, seeks review of the summary denial of his postcon-viction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.860. We find merit only in Brule’s allegation that special condition of probation (d), disallowing early termination of probation, was not orally pronounced at sentencing. The trial court denied the motion without attaching any documentation which would refute this claim raised by Brule. See Kirkland v, State, 633 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Rogers v. State, 611 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In all other respects the trial court’s order is affirmed.

Accordingly we reverse. On remand, should the trial court again deny the motion, it must attach portions of the record which refute Brule’s claim. See Becton v. State, 668 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

692 So. 2d 927, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2740, 1997 WL 134342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brule-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack