Chaplin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chaplin v. State

501 So. 2d 728, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 396, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6560

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 29, 1987

DocketNo. BM-323

StatusPublished

This text of 501 So. 2d 728 (Chaplin 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

Chaplin v. State, 501 So. 2d 728, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 396, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6560 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Chaplin appeals from an order revoking his probation. In the affidavit which initiated the revocation proceeding, seven violations of Chaplin’s conditions of probation were alleged. At the conclusion of the revocation hearing, the trial court orally found that Chaplin was guilty of three of the violations. We find that there is sufficient evidence to support such finding and that such violations justified revocation of probation.

We therefore AFFIRM but REMAND with instructions that the trial court amend the revocation order by including therein the particular violations for which the court found Chaplin guilty. See Meyer v. State, 445 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1984); Esbenshade v. State, 494 So.2d 274 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1986). The defendant, of course, need not be present therefor.

WENTWORTH, WIGGINTON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Chaplin appeals from an order revoking his probation. In the affidavit which initiated the revocation proceeding, seven violations of Chaplin’s conditions of probation were alleged. At the conclusion of the revocation hearing, the trial court orally found that Chaplin was guilty of three of the violations. We find that there is sufficient evidence to support such finding and that such violations justified revocation of probation.

We therefore AFFIRM but REMAND with instructions that the trial court amend the revocation order by including therein the particular violations for which the court found Chaplin guilty. See Meyer v. State, 445 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1984); Esbenshade v. State, 494 So.2d 274 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1986). The defendant, of course, need not be present therefor.

WENTWORTH, WIGGINTON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

501 So. 2d 728, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 396, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chaplin-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack