Deal v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Deal v. State

405 So. 2d 1073

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 18, 1981

DocketNo. AC-242

StatusPublished

This text of 405 So. 2d 1073 (Deal 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

Deal v. State, 405 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After due consideration of the Anders1 brief filed on behalf of Appellant and the record, we affirm the revocation of her probation, but we remand the case for correction of the written revocation order.

The order is ambiguous because it first indicates that Appellant was found guilty of violating conditions I, III, V, and IX but later states she was found not guilty of violating condition V. Further, the order does not state that Appellant was found not guilty of condition IX. Since at the hearing the court only found that Appellant had violated conditions I and III and had not violated conditions V and IX, it should correct the written revocation order to conform to its oral pronouncement. Rusu v. State, 370 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979); and Towson v. State, 382 So.2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

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

PER CURIAM.

After due consideration of the Anders1 brief filed on behalf of Appellant and the record, we affirm the revocation of her probation, but we remand the case for correction of the written revocation order.

The order is ambiguous because it first indicates that Appellant was found guilty of violating conditions I, III, V, and IX but later states she was found not guilty of violating condition V. Further, the order does not state that Appellant was found not guilty of condition IX. Since at the hearing the court only found that Appellant had violated conditions I and III and had not violated conditions V and IX, it should correct the written revocation order to conform to its oral pronouncement. Rusu v. State, 370 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979); and Towson v. State, 382 So.2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 So. 2d 1073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deal-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack