Fields v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fields v. State

697 So. 2d 1010, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9194, 1997 WL 461155

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 13, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3384

StatusPublished

This text of 697 So. 2d 1010 (Fields 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

697 So. 2d 1010, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9194, 1997 WL 461155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fields-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack