Clifton v. State

241 So. 3d 274
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 20, 2018·No. Case No. 2D17–2796·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal proceeding under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm, without comment, the revocation of the probation Mr. Clifton was serving following his 2013 adjudication for two counts of sale of hydrocodone and the resulting sentences imposed after that revocation. However, because the order of revocation does not specify the conditions Mr. Clifton admitted violating-specifically conditions (3) and (10) as set forth in the affidavit of violation-we remand for the entry of an order *275specifying those conditions. See Rodriguez v. State, 232 So.3d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ; Huggins v. State, 216 So.3d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).

Affirmed; remanded with directions.

KHOUZAM, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.

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

Clifton v. State, 241 So. 3d 274 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

241 So. 3d 274 (Clifton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Huggins v. State
216 So. 3d 785 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)