Cook v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cook v. State

656 So. 2d 283, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6793, 1995 WL 371177

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cook v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 636 So. 2d 895 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 23, 1995·No. No. 94-4108·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, an inmate of the state correctional system, seeks review of an order denying his motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, seeking post-conviction relief. We affirm as to all issues, only one of which merits discussion.

In its order denying relief, the trial court acknowledged that the order revoking appellant’s community control must be corrected [284]*284to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence. However, the record does not reflect whether that was actually accomplished. If it was not, on remand, the trial court shall ensure that it is.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED, with directions.

WOLF, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, an inmate of the state correctional system, seeks review of an order denying his motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, seeking post-conviction relief. We affirm as to all issues, only one of which merits discussion.

In its order denying relief, the trial court acknowledged that the order revoking appellant’s community control must be corrected [284]*284to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence. However, the record does not reflect whether that was actually accomplished. If it was not, on remand, the trial court shall ensure that it is.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED, with directions.

WOLF, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cook v. State, 656 So. 2d 283, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6793, 1995 WL 371177 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

656 So. 2d 283 (Cook v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.