Crosen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crosen v. State

166 So. 3d 228, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9319, 2015 WL 3793494

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 19, 2015

DocketNo. 5D15-11

StatusPublished

This text of 166 So. 3d 228 (Crosen 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

Crosen v. State, 166 So. 3d 228, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9319, 2015 WL 3793494 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Delmas A. Crosen seeks review of the trial court’s order revoking his probation. We find no error and affirm. We note, however, that the written order does not specify which conditions were violated. While we recognize that the trial court made findings from the bench that were supported by competent, substantial evidence, Crosen is entitled to a written revocation order that conforms with the court’s oral pronouncements and specifies which conditions of his probation were violated. Patt v. State, 876 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of probation, but remand this matter to the trial court for entry of an amended revocation order that comports, with the trial court’s oral pronouncements.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

TORPY, C.J., SAWAYA and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Delmas A. Crosen seeks review of the trial court’s order revoking his probation. We find no error and affirm. We note, however, that the written order does not specify which conditions were violated. While we recognize that the trial court made findings from the bench that were supported by competent, substantial evidence, Crosen is entitled to a written revocation order that conforms with the court’s oral pronouncements and specifies which conditions of his probation were violated. Patt v. State, 876 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of probation, but remand this matter to the trial court for entry of an amended revocation order that comports, with the trial court’s oral pronouncements.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

TORPY, C.J., SAWAYA and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 So. 3d 228, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9319, 2015 WL 3793494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crosen-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack