Cahill v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cahill v. State

526 So. 2d 220, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1397, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2502, 1988 WL 59444

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 15, 1988·No. No. 87-2853·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in all respects. However, we remand to the trial court to enter a written order of revocation that conforms to the trial court’s oral pronouncements: that Count 1, violation of probation for changing residence without consent of probation officer, was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence; that Count 2, violation of condition of probation for failing to submit monthly reports, was violated in the month of May only; that Count 5, violation of condition of probation for uttering a forged instrument, was violated; and Count 6, violation of probation for grand theft, was violated.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in all respects. However, we remand to the trial court to enter a written order of revocation that conforms to the trial court’s oral pronouncements: that Count 1, violation of probation for changing residence without consent of probation officer, was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence; that Count 2, violation of condition of probation for failing to submit monthly reports, was violated in the month of May only; that Count 5, violation of condition of probation for uttering a forged instrument, was violated; and Count 6, violation of probation for grand theft, was violated.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

Cahill v. State, 526 So. 2d 220, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1397, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2502, 1988 WL 59444 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

526 So. 2d 220 (Cahill v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related