Crawford v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crawford v. State

840 So. 2d 1093, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2390, 2003 WL 553747

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 28, 2003

DocketNo. 1D01-3396

StatusPublished

This text of 840 So. 2d 1093 (Crawford 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

Crawford v. State, 840 So. 2d 1093, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2390, 2003 WL 553747 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) informing the court that she is unable to make an argument for reversal, but pointing out that the probation orders at issue should be corrected to identify the conditions of probation violated. We find no error in the revocation proceeding other than the defect noted by counsel. Therefore, we affirm the revocation of the appellant’s probation and the imposition of judgment and sentence in the two lower court cases, and we remand for the entry of written revocation orders specifying the conditions of probation that were violated. See Oliver v. State, 819 So.2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Wells v. State, 651 So.2d 759 [1094]*1094(Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Aidone v. State, 763 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED, with directions.

BARFIELD, KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) informing the court that she is unable to make an argument for reversal, but pointing out that the probation orders at issue should be corrected to identify the conditions of probation violated. We find no error in the revocation proceeding other than the defect noted by counsel. Therefore, we affirm the revocation of the appellant’s probation and the imposition of judgment and sentence in the two lower court cases, and we remand for the entry of written revocation orders specifying the conditions of probation that were violated. See Oliver v. State, 819 So.2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Wells v. State, 651 So.2d 759 [1094]*1094(Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Aidone v. State, 763 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED, with directions.

BARFIELD, KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

840 So. 2d 1093, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2390, 2003 WL 553747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack