Glass v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Glass v. State

597 So. 2d 984, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5805, 1992 WL 109629

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 27, 1992

DocketNo. 91-2944

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 597 So. 2d 984 (Glass 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

Glass v. State, 597 So. 2d 984, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5805, 1992 WL 109629 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges an order revoking his probation. We reverse and remand.

The state concedes the trial court erred when it included in its written order of revocation certain violations of the conditions of probation, that is, failure to pay restitution and court costs, which the trial court did not include in its oral pronouncement. See, Gardner v. State, 569 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The state also concedes the trial court erred in relying on appellant’s arrest. See, Hines v. State, 358 So.2d 183 (Fla.1978). Because it is not apparent from the record that the trial court would have revoked probation solely on the basis of the threatening telephone call made by appellant to the victim of appellant’s prior offenses, we remand for re-consideration by the trial court of its decision to revoke appellant’s probation.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SMITH, ZEHMER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges an order revoking his probation. We reverse and remand.

The state concedes the trial court erred when it included in its written order of revocation certain violations of the conditions of probation, that is, failure to pay restitution and court costs, which the trial court did not include in its oral pronouncement. See, Gardner v. State, 569 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The state also concedes the trial court erred in relying on appellant’s arrest. See, Hines v. State, 358 So.2d 183 (Fla.1978). Because it is not apparent from the record that the trial court would have revoked probation solely on the basis of the threatening telephone call made by appellant to the victim of appellant’s prior offenses, we remand for re-consideration by the trial court of its decision to revoke appellant’s probation.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SMITH, ZEHMER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

597 So. 2d 984, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5805, 1992 WL 109629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glass-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack