Enzor v. State
This text of 996 So. 2d 955 (Enzor 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.
Opinion
Ronnie A. ENZOR, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Ronnie A. Enzor, pro se, Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Thomas D. Winokur, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court's order summarily denying his claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his probation because his term of probation had already expired. Although the record contains a warrant and affidavit of violation of probation, these documents are dated after the appellant's one-year Gadsden County probation had already expired. Because the record does not conclusively refute the appellant's claim, we reverse and remand either for additional record portions that refute the appellant's claim, or for an evidentiary hearing. See Thomas *956 v. State, 707 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BROWNING, C.J., KAHN and BENTON, JJ., Concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
996 So. 2d 955, 2008 WL 5220690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enzor-v-state-fladistctapp-2008.