Ingram v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ingram v. State

754 So. 2d 802, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3669, 2000 WL 313309

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 29, 2000

DocketNo. 2D99-728

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 754 So. 2d 802 (Ingram 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

Ingram v. State, 754 So. 2d 802, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3669, 2000 WL 313309 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

FULMER, Judge.

Evan Ingram appeals the revocation of his probation. We affirm the revocation based on a violation of conditions (6) and (8), but reverse the finding of a violation of condition (27) and remand for entry of a written order.

We affirm the revocation because the record supports a finding of a willful violation of conditions (6) and (8). However, we reverse the finding of a willful violation of probation condition (27), which required Ingram to submit to a mental health evaluation, because the probation order did not specify the time within which Ingram was required to obtain the evaluation and Ingram ultimately complied with this condition during the probationary period. See Salzano v. State, 664 So.2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Young v. State, 566 So.2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Furthermore, the record on appeal does not contain a written order of revocation. We, therefore, remand for entry of a revocation order which indicates the violation of probation conditions (6) and (8). See Hillman v. State, 663 So.2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with directions.

PARKER, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.

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

FULMER, Judge.

Evan Ingram appeals the revocation of his probation. We affirm the revocation based on a violation of conditions (6) and (8), but reverse the finding of a violation of condition (27) and remand for entry of a written order.

We affirm the revocation because the record supports a finding of a willful violation of conditions (6) and (8). However, we reverse the finding of a willful violation of probation condition (27), which required Ingram to submit to a mental health evaluation, because the probation order did not specify the time within which Ingram was required to obtain the evaluation and Ingram ultimately complied with this condition during the probationary period. See Salzano v. State, 664 So.2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Young v. State, 566 So.2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Furthermore, the record on appeal does not contain a written order of revocation. We, therefore, remand for entry of a revocation order which indicates the violation of probation conditions (6) and (8). See Hillman v. State, 663 So.2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with directions.

PARKER, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

754 So. 2d 802, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3669, 2000 WL 313309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingram-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack