Hood v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hood v. State

184 So. 3d 1171, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18747, 2015 WL 8923941

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 16, 2015

Docket2D14-4977

StatusPublished

This text of 184 So. 3d 1171 (Hood 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

Hood v. State, 184 So. 3d 1171, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18747, 2015 WL 8923941 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

SALARIO, Judge.

We review this matter pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Marcus K. Hood' challenges' the revocation of his probation and his resulting sentences for re-, sisting arrest without violence and driving with a suspended license. We affirm the revocation of probation and the sentences imposed without comment. We remand only for the correction of a scrivener’s *1172 error that appears on the face of the written order of revocation. See Margolis v. State, 148 So.3d 532, 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Although the order indicates that Hood admitted to violations of conditions two and three of his probation, the record reflects that he was found to have violated those conditions by the trial court following a hearing on the issue. On remand the trial court shall enter an order of revocation reflecting the correction of this error.

Affirmed; remanded with instructions.

CASANUEVA and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

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

SALARIO, Judge.

We review this matter pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Marcus K. Hood' challenges' the revocation of his probation and his resulting sentences for re-, sisting arrest without violence and driving with a suspended license. We affirm the revocation of probation and the sentences imposed without comment. We remand only for the correction of a scrivener’s *1172 error that appears on the face of the written order of revocation. See Margolis v. State, 148 So.3d 532, 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Although the order indicates that Hood admitted to violations of conditions two and three of his probation, the record reflects that he was found to have violated those conditions by the trial court following a hearing on the issue. On remand the trial court shall enter an order of revocation reflecting the correction of this error.

Affirmed; remanded with instructions.

CASANUEVA and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 So. 3d 1171, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18747, 2015 WL 8923941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hood-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack