D.W.P. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

D.W.P. v. State

677 So. 2d 956, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8038, 1996 WL 426269

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 31, 1996

DocketNo. 95-02032

StatusPublished

This text of 677 So. 2d 956 (D.W.P. 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

D.W.P. v. State, 677 So. 2d 956, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8038, 1996 WL 426269 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

WHATLEY, Judge.

D.W.P. raises two challenges to a condition of his probation. We find merit only in his contention that the probation order should conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement.

D.W.P. argues, and the state correctly concedes, that the order of disposition should conform to the sentence that the trial court orally pronounced. See Ayers v. State, 651 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). At the sentencing hearing, the trial court announced that, as a condition of his probation, D.W.P. was to have no contact with minor children unless a responsible adult was present. However, the order of disposition only states that D.W.P. is to have no contact with minor children.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and remand for the trial court to conform the written sentence to the oral pronouncement. D.W.P. need not be present. See Ayers, 651 So.2d 1226. The sentence is otherwise affirmed.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.

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