Greenberg v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Greenberg v. State

513 So. 2d 260, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2356, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10458

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 2, 1987

DocketNo. 87-186

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 513 So. 2d 260 (Greenberg 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

Greenberg v. State, 513 So. 2d 260, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2356, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10458 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to suppress evidence seized after he was stopped by a police officer. The appeal filed is timely and is properly before us. We conclude that the trial court committed no error in denying appellant’s motion for su-pression of evidence, and accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

We do, however, remand the case to the trial court for correction of the order of probation entered on count three of the amended information to reflect that appellant was adjudicated guilty and placed on two years’ probation for the offense of possession of a controlled substance as charged in count three, rather than carrying a concealed firearm as now appears on the order. In all other respects, the orders of probation entered on counts one, two, and three of the amended information are affirmed.

These corrections may be made without the necessity of appellant appearing before the trial court.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., HALL, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to suppress evidence seized after he was stopped by a police officer. The appeal filed is timely and is properly before us. We conclude that the trial court committed no error in denying appellant’s motion for su-pression of evidence, and accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

We do, however, remand the case to the trial court for correction of the order of probation entered on count three of the amended information to reflect that appellant was adjudicated guilty and placed on two years’ probation for the offense of possession of a controlled substance as charged in count three, rather than carrying a concealed firearm as now appears on the order. In all other respects, the orders of probation entered on counts one, two, and three of the amended information are affirmed.

These corrections may be made without the necessity of appellant appearing before the trial court.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., HALL, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 So. 2d 260, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2356, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenberg-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack