Harvin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harvin v. State

882 So. 2d 1089, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13815, 2004 WL 2098127

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 22, 2004

DocketNo. 1D03-2900

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 882 So. 2d 1089 (Harvin 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

Harvin v. State, 882 So. 2d 1089, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13815, 2004 WL 2098127 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This direct criminal appeal was brought pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Having reviewed the entire record, we agree that no reversible error has occurred. We affirm the trial court’s revocation of appellant’s community control and imposition of judgment and sentence. However, the trial court erred in revoking appellant’s community control based on a subsequent amended violation report filed after appellant admitted to violating his community control. Cf. Perkins v. State, 842 So.2d 275, 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding that the trial court is not permitted to revoke probation based on conduct not charged in the affidavit). Appellant admitted to violating the conditions set forth in the violation report filed March 5, 2003. The trial court accepted the admission on May 8, 2003. The written order of revocation erroneously bases the revocation on the violation report filed May 13, 2003. The record does not show that appellant admitted to committing new violations raised in the May 13, 2003, report or that the state presented a factual basis to revoke probation based on the new violations. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to correct the order of revocation to reflect that revocation was based on the violation report filed on March 5, 2003, not May 13, 2003.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

DAVIS, BROWNING and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This direct criminal appeal was brought pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Having reviewed the entire record, we agree that no reversible error has occurred. We affirm the trial court’s revocation of appellant’s community control and imposition of judgment and sentence. However, the trial court erred in revoking appellant’s community control based on a subsequent amended violation report filed after appellant admitted to violating his community control. Cf. Perkins v. State, 842 So.2d 275, 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding that the trial court is not permitted to revoke probation based on conduct not charged in the affidavit). Appellant admitted to violating the conditions set forth in the violation report filed March 5, 2003. The trial court accepted the admission on May 8, 2003. The written order of revocation erroneously bases the revocation on the violation report filed May 13, 2003. The record does not show that appellant admitted to committing new violations raised in the May 13, 2003, report or that the state presented a factual basis to revoke probation based on the new violations. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to correct the order of revocation to reflect that revocation was based on the violation report filed on March 5, 2003, not May 13, 2003.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

DAVIS, BROWNING and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

882 So. 2d 1089, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13815, 2004 WL 2098127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvin-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack