Huggins v. State

216 So. 3d 785, 2017 WL 1969689, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6780

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders¹ appeal, we affirm Cody Huggins’ judgments and sentences and the revocation of his probation. However, the order of revocation of probation entered on December 4, 2016, does not identify the conditions found to have been violated. We remand solely for entry of a corrected revocation order specifying the condition(s) of probation that Mr. Huggins violated. See Greene v. State, 919 So.2d 684, 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“A proper order of revocation will identify the specific conditions of probation violated by the defendant.”).

Affirmed; remanded with directions.

NORTHCUTT, CASANUEVA, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

1 . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).