Gozia v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gozia v. State

211 So. 3d 375, 2017 WL 1103019, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3907

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 24, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D16-5305

StatusPublished

This text of 211 So. 3d 375 (Gozia 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

Gozia v. State, 211 So. 3d 375, 2017 WL 1103019, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3907 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Robert Patrick Gozia, appeals the “Order of Judgment and Sentence” that was entered following the revocation of his probation. Because we conclude that it was fundamental error to revoke Appellant’s probation for failure to complete his community service hours when the Order of Modification of Probation gave him until August 15, 2017, to either perform his ordered community service hours or to buy out his remaining hours, we reverse and remand for the reinstatement of his probation. See Hendricks v. State, 34 So.3d 819, 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (discussing an appellate court’s duty to correct fundamental error on appeal); Bishop v. State, 21 So.3d 830, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (same).

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

ROBERTS, C.J., LEWIS, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Robert Patrick Gozia, appeals the “Order of Judgment and Sentence” that was entered following the revocation of his probation. Because we conclude that it was fundamental error to revoke Appellant’s probation for failure to complete his community service hours when the Order of Modification of Probation gave him until August 15, 2017, to either perform his ordered community service hours or to buy out his remaining hours, we reverse and remand for the reinstatement of his probation. See Hendricks v. State, 34 So.3d 819, 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (discussing an appellate court’s duty to correct fundamental error on appeal); Bishop v. State, 21 So.3d 830, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (same).

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

ROBERTS, C.J., LEWIS, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 So. 3d 375, 2017 WL 1103019, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gozia-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack