Cherisma v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cherisma v. State

789 So. 2d 1247, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10844, 2001 WL 864270

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 1, 2001·No. No. 4D00-400·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order revoking appellant’s probation. The evidence presented at the hearing supports the finding that appellant violated his probation by setting up the armed robbery of his employer. The trial court erred in finding appellant guilty of Count II of the amended violation probation affidavit, since no evidence was presented concerning that armed robbery. Nonetheless, the other armed robbery violation is more than substantial enough to warrant revocation, so we do not remand the case for reconsideration by the trial court. See Kiess v. State, 642 So.2d 1141, 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

POLEN, C.J., STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order revoking appellant’s probation. The evidence presented at the hearing supports the finding that appellant violated his probation by setting up the armed robbery of his employer. The trial court erred in finding appellant guilty of Count II of the amended violation probation affidavit, since no evidence was presented concerning that armed robbery. Nonetheless, the other armed robbery violation is more than substantial enough to warrant revocation, so we do not remand the case for reconsideration by the trial court. See Kiess v. State, 642 So.2d 1141, 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

POLEN, C.J., STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cherisma v. State, 789 So. 2d 1247, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10844, 2001 WL 864270 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

789 So. 2d 1247 (Cherisma v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related