Caputo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Caputo v. State

573 So. 2d 1078, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 957, 1991 WL 15490

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 13, 1991

DocketNo. 90-0706

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 573 So. 2d 1078 (Caputo 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

Caputo v. State, 573 So. 2d 1078, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 957, 1991 WL 15490 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. However, we remand for correction of the order of revocation of probation. While the trial court’s oral pronouncement found appellant violated his probation only by driving with a suspended license, the written order included two other findings of violation of probation, namely resisting arrest without violence and loitering and prowling. The state concedes the error of including the finding of a violation based upon the loitering and prowling charge, since the trial court expressly acquitted him of this charge. We also direct that the finding of a violation based on the resisting arrest charge be stricken as the order of violation does not conform to the oral pronouncements of the trial court judge who made no express finding of a violation on those grounds. Harrington v. State, 570 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. However, we remand for correction of the order of revocation of probation. While the trial court’s oral pronouncement found appellant violated his probation only by driving with a suspended license, the written order included two other findings of violation of probation, namely resisting arrest without violence and loitering and prowling. The state concedes the error of including the finding of a violation based upon the loitering and prowling charge, since the trial court expressly acquitted him of this charge. We also direct that the finding of a violation based on the resisting arrest charge be stricken as the order of violation does not conform to the oral pronouncements of the trial court judge who made no express finding of a violation on those grounds. Harrington v. State, 570 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

573 So. 2d 1078, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 957, 1991 WL 15490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caputo-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack