Hamm v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hamm v. State

473 So. 2d 816, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1932, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15199

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 9, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1577

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 473 So. 2d 816 (Hamm 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

Hamm v. State, 473 So. 2d 816, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1932, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15199 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Albert Hamm, Jr. was charged with violating three conditions of his probation. After a hearing, the trial judge revoked Hamm’s probation and sentenced him to twenty-four months imprisonment. The trial judge entered no written order revoking Hamm’s probation and stating therein which condition or conditions he had violated as contemplated by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.790(b).

Because the record on appeal contains no transcript of the probation revocation hearing, we cannot determine whether the evidence at the hearing supported the trial court’s revocation of Hamm’s probation. Therefore, the case is remanded to the trial court for the entry of a written order revoking Hamm’s probation and indicating which condition or conditions of probation were found to have been violated.

RYDER, C.J., and SCHEB and FRANK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Albert Hamm, Jr. was charged with violating three conditions of his probation. After a hearing, the trial judge revoked Hamm’s probation and sentenced him to twenty-four months imprisonment. The trial judge entered no written order revoking Hamm’s probation and stating therein which condition or conditions he had violated as contemplated by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.790(b).

Because the record on appeal contains no transcript of the probation revocation hearing, we cannot determine whether the evidence at the hearing supported the trial court’s revocation of Hamm’s probation. Therefore, the case is remanded to the trial court for the entry of a written order revoking Hamm’s probation and indicating which condition or conditions of probation were found to have been violated.

RYDER, C.J., and SCHEB and FRANK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 So. 2d 816, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1932, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamm-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack