Burruss v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burruss v. State

967 So. 2d 1058, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 17336, 2007 WL 3223703

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 2, 2007

DocketNo. 5D05-4521

StatusPublished

This text of 967 So. 2d 1058 (Burruss 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

Burruss v. State, 967 So. 2d 1058, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 17336, 2007 WL 3223703 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J.

Appellant, Lucky Burruss, appeals the order finding him in violation of probation and imposing a sentence of thirty months’ incarceration. We find no merit in appellant’s claims on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to grant a continuance of the hearing or the twin contentions that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or an adequate legal basis to revoke his probation. The State concedes, however, that the record does not contain the required written order revoking probation and identifying the condition of probation that was violated. Accordingly, we remand for entry of a written order consistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Patt v. State, 876 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Resentencing will not be required.

REMANDED.

THOMPSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

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

GRIFFIN, J.

Appellant, Lucky Burruss, appeals the order finding him in violation of probation and imposing a sentence of thirty months’ incarceration. We find no merit in appellant’s claims on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to grant a continuance of the hearing or the twin contentions that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or an adequate legal basis to revoke his probation. The State concedes, however, that the record does not contain the required written order revoking probation and identifying the condition of probation that was violated. Accordingly, we remand for entry of a written order consistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Patt v. State, 876 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Resentencing will not be required.

REMANDED.

THOMPSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

967 So. 2d 1058, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 17336, 2007 WL 3223703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burruss-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack