Hutchinson v. State
856 So. 2d 1108, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 15700, 2003 WL 22398788
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hutchinson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 816 So. 2d 1186 →
Opinion
The appellant challenges the revocation of his probation, where the court did not indicate which particular conditions were violated. Because this is required under cases such as Rogers v. State, 635 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the appealed orders are reversed and the case is remanded for entry of a written order specifying the conditions which the court found to have been violated. See also, e.g., Jones v. State, 638 So.2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA [1109]*11091994); Brundage v. State, 598 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hutchinson v. State, 856 So. 2d 1108, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 15700, 2003 WL 22398788 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).
856 So. 2d 1108 (Hutchinson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Jones v. State
638 So. 2d 126 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Rogers v. State
635 So. 2d 1026 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)