Bush v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bush v. State

750 So. 2d 758, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 966, 2000 WL 126066

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 4, 2000

DocketNo. 2D99-563

StatusPublished

This text of 750 So. 2d 758 (Bush 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

Bush v. State, 750 So. 2d 758, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 966, 2000 WL 126066 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant, Jerry Bush, challenges the propriety of the concurrent thirty-year habitual offender sentences imposed upon the revocation of the community control he was serving in two separate cases. We find merit only in his claim that a written revocation order should have been entered. Thus, because the record fails to contain a formal revocation order, this cause is remanded with directions to the trial court to enter a written order, revoking Bush’s community control and — in conformance with the trial court’s oral pronouncements — specifically reciting the violations upon which the revocation is based. See Givens v. State, 666 So.2d 235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Clark v. State, 510 So.2d 1202, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

Affirmed; remanded.

NORTHCUTT and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

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

THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant, Jerry Bush, challenges the propriety of the concurrent thirty-year habitual offender sentences imposed upon the revocation of the community control he was serving in two separate cases. We find merit only in his claim that a written revocation order should have been entered. Thus, because the record fails to contain a formal revocation order, this cause is remanded with directions to the trial court to enter a written order, revoking Bush’s community control and — in conformance with the trial court’s oral pronouncements — specifically reciting the violations upon which the revocation is based. See Givens v. State, 666 So.2d 235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Clark v. State, 510 So.2d 1202, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

Affirmed; remanded.

NORTHCUTT and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

750 So. 2d 758, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 966, 2000 WL 126066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bush-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack