COVENY v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

COVENY v. State

26 So. 3d 663, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 522, 2010 WL 289197

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 27, 2010

Docket3D08-2303

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 So. 3d 663 (COVENY 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

COVENY v. State, 26 So. 3d 663, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 522, 2010 WL 289197 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

Because the trial court was, to say the least, free to reject the defendant’s dubious explanation 1 for not reporting to the probation office as ordered, Adams v. State, 979 So.2d 921, 928 (Fla.2008) (“The trial court was well within its discretion in rejecting [a defendant’s] excuse as unpersuasive”), the order revoking his probation on the ground that he willfully did not report is affirmed. See State v. Carter, 835 So.2d 259 (Fla.2002). The provision of the order stating that a basis for revocation was violating condition 5 was entered in error and is vacated.

Affirmed as amended.

1

. Among other things, the defendant claimed that he was confused that the day on which he was required to report was Friday, rather than Thursday, which it actually was, with the concomitant consequence that he thought that the next day — on which he also did not report — was Saturday, when he thought the office was closed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

Because the trial court was, to say the least, free to reject the defendant’s dubious explanation 1 for not reporting to the probation office as ordered, Adams v. State, 979 So.2d 921, 928 (Fla.2008) (“The trial court was well within its discretion in rejecting [a defendant’s] excuse as unpersuasive”), the order revoking his probation on the ground that he willfully did not report is affirmed. See State v. Carter, 835 So.2d 259 (Fla.2002). The provision of the order stating that a basis for revocation was violating condition 5 was entered in error and is vacated.

Affirmed as amended.

1

. Among other things, the defendant claimed that he was confused that the day on which he was required to report was Friday, rather than Thursday, which it actually was, with the concomitant consequence that he thought that the next day — on which he also did not report — was Saturday, when he thought the office was closed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 So. 3d 663, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 522, 2010 WL 289197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coveny-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack