Didion v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Didion v. State

146 So. 3d 1262, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14191, 2014 WL 4471659

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 12, 2014

DocketNo. 5D13-3998

StatusPublished

This text of 146 So. 3d 1262 (Didion 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

Didion v. State, 146 So. 3d 1262, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14191, 2014 WL 4471659 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Didion appeals the order finding him in violation of his probation for committing new law offenses and the sentence imposed on the underlying offenses. He argues that the trial court erred in finding him in violation (1) where there was no non-hearsay evidence to corroborate the hearsay evidence; (2) because the verdict was not supported by the weight of the evidence; and (3) because the neces[1263]*1263sary elements of the alleged crimes were not established. He also argues that, when sentencing him, the court improperly considered prior alleged violations that had been dismissed. As to these issues, we affirm without further discussion.

Didion also argues that the court erred by entering a judgment that did not specify the condition he was found to have violated, instead finding him guilty of “on site violation of state probation.” We agree with Didion that the judgment contains what appear to be scrivener’s errors. The Affidavit of Violation of Probation alleged that Didion had violated Condition 5 of his probation by committing the new law offenses of burglary of an occupied dwelling and criminal mischief, but as Didion correctly points out and the State concedes, the judgment does not specify which condition Didion violated. Although it is obviously Condition 5, the judgment erroneously specifies that Didion committed an “on site violation of state probation,” which is a nonexistent offense. Therefore, we remand this case to the trial court to correct the scrivener’s errors in the judgment by striking the reference to the nonexistent offense and to specify the condition of probation Didion violated.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct scrivener’s errors.

SAWAYA, PALMER, and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Didion appeals the order finding him in violation of his probation for committing new law offenses and the sentence imposed on the underlying offenses. He argues that the trial court erred in finding him in violation (1) where there was no non-hearsay evidence to corroborate the hearsay evidence; (2) because the verdict was not supported by the weight of the evidence; and (3) because the neces[1263]*1263sary elements of the alleged crimes were not established. He also argues that, when sentencing him, the court improperly considered prior alleged violations that had been dismissed. As to these issues, we affirm without further discussion.

Didion also argues that the court erred by entering a judgment that did not specify the condition he was found to have violated, instead finding him guilty of “on site violation of state probation.” We agree with Didion that the judgment contains what appear to be scrivener’s errors. The Affidavit of Violation of Probation alleged that Didion had violated Condition 5 of his probation by committing the new law offenses of burglary of an occupied dwelling and criminal mischief, but as Didion correctly points out and the State concedes, the judgment does not specify which condition Didion violated. Although it is obviously Condition 5, the judgment erroneously specifies that Didion committed an “on site violation of state probation,” which is a nonexistent offense. Therefore, we remand this case to the trial court to correct the scrivener’s errors in the judgment by striking the reference to the nonexistent offense and to specify the condition of probation Didion violated.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct scrivener’s errors.

SAWAYA, PALMER, and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 So. 3d 1262, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14191, 2014 WL 4471659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/didion-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.