Gary v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gary v. State

90 So. 3d 333, 2012 WL 1449323, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6633

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 27, 2012

DocketNo. 1D11-3374

StatusPublished

This text of 90 So. 3d 333 (Gary 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

Gary v. State, 90 So. 3d 333, 2012 WL 1449323, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6633 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders

* appeal, we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence but remand for entry of a written order of revocation of probation. The trial court orally found that Appellant willfully and substantially violated condition five of his probation in two ways. Although the court revoked Appellant’s probation, it neglected to enter a formal, written order of revocation. Such an order is required. Fowler v. State, 79 So.3d 868, 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (citing Robinson v. State, 74 So.3d 570, 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)). We, therefore, remand for entry of a revocation order consistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Appellant need not be present for the entry of the order. See Fowler, 79 So.3d at 868.

AFFIRMED.

DAVIS, THOMAS, and RAY, JJ., concur.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

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

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders

* appeal, we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence but remand for entry of a written order of revocation of probation. The trial court orally found that Appellant willfully and substantially violated condition five of his probation in two ways. Although the court revoked Appellant’s probation, it neglected to enter a formal, written order of revocation. Such an order is required. Fowler v. State, 79 So.3d 868, 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (citing Robinson v. State, 74 So.3d 570, 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)). We, therefore, remand for entry of a revocation order consistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Appellant need not be present for the entry of the order. See Fowler, 79 So.3d at 868.

AFFIRMED.

DAVIS, THOMAS, and RAY, JJ., concur.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 So. 3d 333, 2012 WL 1449323, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack