Gamble v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gamble v. State

636 So. 2d 586, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4556, 1994 WL 180411

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 1994

DocketNo. 92-03990

StatusPublished

This text of 636 So. 2d 586 (Gamble 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

Gamble v. State, 636 So. 2d 586, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4556, 1994 WL 180411 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, appellant was placed on two years community control for the commission of six counts of theft and burglary. After the court found appellant had violated community control, he was sentenced to twenty-two years prison.

Appellant argues the evidence is not sufficient to support the allegations of violation of community control. We find the evidence sufficient to support the revocation. The order must be corrected, however, because it incorrectly indicates appellant admitted to the violations when he did not. The revocation was the result of a contested hearing. Further, the order incorrectly indicates that appellant was revoked on the basis of the monetary condition. The court specifically found appellant not in violation of that condition.

We affirm the order of revocation of community control and sentence, but remand for correction of the order.

PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, appellant was placed on two years community control for the commission of six counts of theft and burglary. After the court found appellant had violated community control, he was sentenced to twenty-two years prison.

Appellant argues the evidence is not sufficient to support the allegations of violation of community control. We find the evidence sufficient to support the revocation. The order must be corrected, however, because it incorrectly indicates appellant admitted to the violations when he did not. The revocation was the result of a contested hearing. Further, the order incorrectly indicates that appellant was revoked on the basis of the monetary condition. The court specifically found appellant not in violation of that condition.

We affirm the order of revocation of community control and sentence, but remand for correction of the order.

PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

636 So. 2d 586, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4556, 1994 WL 180411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gamble-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.