Hartsfield v. State

683 So. 2d 622, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12427, 1996 WL 673340
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 22, 1996·No. No. 95-01320·Published

Opinion

FRANK, Judge.

David Hartsfield appeals from a final order which revoked his probation. Revocation was premised upon Hartsfield’s admission that he absconded from supervision. We have reviewed this matter in accordance with our obligation under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); and affirm. See In Re Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d 149 (Fla.1991). We remand, however, for the entry of a corrected order which conforms to the trial court’s oral findings. Specifically, Hartsfield admitted to violations contained in a November 22, 1994, affidavit. The written order, however, refers to violations contained in a June 3, 1994, affidavit— violations for which the trial court heard no evidence. Upon remand, Hartsfield need not be present for the entry of a corrected order. See Dunlap v. State, 405 So.2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA1981).

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.

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

Hartsfield v. State, 683 So. 2d 622, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12427, 1996 WL 673340 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

683 So. 2d 622 (Hartsfield v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
In Re Anders Briefs
581 So. 2d 149 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)
Dunlap v. State
405 So. 2d 796 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)