Fields v. State

697 So. 2d 1010, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9194, 1997 WL 461155
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Fields v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 731 So. 2d 753
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 13, 1997·No. No. 96-3384·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions for violation of probation, as there was sufficient evidence of his constructive possession of a gun and cocaine to satisfy the conscience of the court. The cases upon which appellant relies to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence are distinguishable.

We remand to the trial court, however, to correct the written order of revocation of probation to comport with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Specifically, the court found appellant guilty of violating only condition five, so the references to violations of conditions three and four must be deleted. [1011]*1011Hamilton v. State, 578 So.2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., and KOENIG, JULIE, Associate Judge, concur.

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

Fields v. State, 697 So. 2d 1010, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9194, 1997 WL 461155 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

697 So. 2d 1010 (Fields v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hamilton v. State
578 So. 2d 526 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)