Johns v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Johns v. State

596 So. 2d 685, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 426, 1992 WL 5999

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 17, 1992·No. No. 90-03153·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the convictions and sentences imposed upon appellant after he was found guilty of violating his probation.

We need not and do not address the appellant’s contention that he should not have been sentenced to probation after having been declared a habitual offender. The appellant did not object to that probationary sentence when it was imposed nor did he timely appeal that sentence thereafter. His acceptance of probation constituted a waiver of the right to attack that probation at revocation. See Wolfson v. State, 437 So.2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

We find no merit in any of the remaining issues raised by the appellant.

Affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY and PARKER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the convictions and sentences imposed upon appellant after he was found guilty of violating his probation.

We need not and do not address the appellant’s contention that he should not have been sentenced to probation after having been declared a habitual offender. The appellant did not object to that probationary sentence when it was imposed nor did he timely appeal that sentence thereafter. His acceptance of probation constituted a waiver of the right to attack that probation at revocation. See Wolfson v. State, 437 So.2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

We find no merit in any of the remaining issues raised by the appellant.

Affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY and PARKER, JJ., concur.

Johns v. State, 596 So. 2d 685, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 426, 1992 WL 5999 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

596 So. 2d 685 (Johns v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related