Cepero v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cepero v. State

513 So. 2d 735, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2369, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12254

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 6, 1987

DocketNo. 85-844

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 513 So. 2d 735 (Cepero 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

Cepero v. State, 513 So. 2d 735, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2369, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12254 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A substantial violation of probation by the appellant on grounds of (1) possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and (2) possession of a firearm without the probation officer’s permission is supported by the evidence. It is agreed, however, that other grounds stated in the written order revoking probation were not proved or were dismissed by the court in oral pronouncement after hearing the evidence.

We remand to the trial court with directions to strike from the probation revocation order those parts which state that the appellant committed the violations which were not proven by the State. Underwood v. State, 455 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Otherwise the judgment and thirty-month sentence imposed for probation violation are

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

A substantial violation of probation by the appellant on grounds of (1) possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and (2) possession of a firearm without the probation officer’s permission is supported by the evidence. It is agreed, however, that other grounds stated in the written order revoking probation were not proved or were dismissed by the court in oral pronouncement after hearing the evidence.

We remand to the trial court with directions to strike from the probation revocation order those parts which state that the appellant committed the violations which were not proven by the State. Underwood v. State, 455 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Otherwise the judgment and thirty-month sentence imposed for probation violation are

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 So. 2d 735, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2369, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cepero-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack