Highsmith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Highsmith v. State

633 So. 2d 1203, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3034, 1994 WL 101086

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 30, 1994

DocketNo. 93-2744

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 633 So. 2d 1203 (Highsmith 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

Highsmith v. State, 633 So. 2d 1203, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3034, 1994 WL 101086 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges a judgment and sentence entered upon an order revoking his probation. At the revocation hearing the appellant maintained that he did not willfully violate certain conditions of his probation. The court’s oral pronouncement and the written order both fail to identify the specific conditions which the appellant may have violated so as to provide a basis for revocation. The order is thus deficient. See Brundage v. State, 593 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Brewer v. State, 583 So.2d 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Knight v. State, 566 So.2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); but see Thomas v. State, 585 So.2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The challenged order is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded for the entry of a proper written order.

BOOTH, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges a judgment and sentence entered upon an order revoking his probation. At the revocation hearing the appellant maintained that he did not willfully violate certain conditions of his probation. The court’s oral pronouncement and the written order both fail to identify the specific conditions which the appellant may have violated so as to provide a basis for revocation. The order is thus deficient. See Brundage v. State, 593 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Brewer v. State, 583 So.2d 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Knight v. State, 566 So.2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); but see Thomas v. State, 585 So.2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The challenged order is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded for the entry of a proper written order.

BOOTH, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 So. 2d 1203, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3034, 1994 WL 101086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/highsmith-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack