Feezel v. State

463 So. 2d 1244, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 485
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 20, 1985
Docket84-946
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 463 So. 2d 1244 (Feezel 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
Feezel v. State, 463 So. 2d 1244, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 485 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

463 So.2d 1244 (1985)

Richard S. FEEZEL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 84-946.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 20, 1985.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Karla J. Staker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

*1245 OTT, Judge.

Defendant Feezel appeals his order modifying his probation by continuing his probationary term for five years with the added condition of a six-month jail term. The affidavit for violation of probation alleged that defendant 1) had not filed his monthly reports for three months, 2) had not paid supervision costs, 3) had not reported to his probation officer upon request, and 4) had not made restitution.

At the hearing, the trial court made an oral declaration that defendant had violated grounds one, two, and three of the four conditions, all amply supported by the record. We find no reversible error in the trial court's finding. However, the written order of modification failed to make or recite any violations. The order of modification must be corrected to reflect the specific conditions which were violated and thus conform to the trial court's oral declaration. See Brown v. State, 429 So.2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Dunlap v. State, 405 So.2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

We affirm the modification of probation, but remand the case for entry of a proper order of modification.

RYDER, C.J., and THOMPSON, JAMES R. Associate Judge, concur.

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

Related

SENAT v. State
62 So. 3d 1236 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Cooper v. State
60 So. 3d 581 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Gonzalez del Valle v. State
564 So. 2d 607 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Morris v. State
563 So. 2d 1136 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Clark v. State
510 So. 2d 1202 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Jordan v. State
489 So. 2d 224 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Brookshire v. State
473 So. 2d 14 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
463 So. 2d 1244, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feezel-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.