Harvester v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harvester v. State

62 So. 3d 1235, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8438, 2011 WL 2279528

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 10, 2011

Docket2D10-3066

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 So. 3d 1235 (Harvester 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

Harvester v. State, 62 So. 3d 1235, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8438, 2011 WL 2279528 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, Judge.

Tammy Lynn Harvester challenges the revocation of her community control after she admitted to violating two conditions of her supervision. We affirm both the revocation and her resulting sentences without further comment. However, the State correctly concedes that the written order of revocation erroneously reflects that Harvester admitted to violating three conditions of her community control when the transcript of the revocation hearing shows that she admitted to violating only two conditions. The trial court orally revoked her community control based only on the two admitted violations. We therefore remand for the limited purpose of the entry of a corrected written order of revocation which conforms with the oral pronouncement. See McNeil v. State, 908 So.2d 556, 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Affirmed and remanded for entry of a corrected order.

NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

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

DAVIS, Judge.

Tammy Lynn Harvester challenges the revocation of her community control after she admitted to violating two conditions of her supervision. We affirm both the revocation and her resulting sentences without further comment. However, the State correctly concedes that the written order of revocation erroneously reflects that Harvester admitted to violating three conditions of her community control when the transcript of the revocation hearing shows that she admitted to violating only two conditions. The trial court orally revoked her community control based only on the two admitted violations. We therefore remand for the limited purpose of the entry of a corrected written order of revocation which conforms with the oral pronouncement. See McNeil v. State, 908 So.2d 556, 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Affirmed and remanded for entry of a corrected order.

NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 So. 3d 1235, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8438, 2011 WL 2279528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvester-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack