Johnston v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Johnston v. State

684 So. 2d 262, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12749, 1996 WL 692152

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 4, 1996

DocketNo. 95-4296

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 684 So. 2d 262 (Johnston 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

Johnston v. State, 684 So. 2d 262, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12749, 1996 WL 692152 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Rodney Johnston, appeals from written orders revoking community control and probation, and from a seven-year prison term. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Appellant correctly argues that the order revoking probation should be vacated because no formal charge of violation of probation had been filed. This issue may be raised for the first time on appeal because it rises to the level of fundamental error. Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So.2d 134 (Fla.1970). Accordingly, the trial court’s order revoking Appellant’s probation is reversed.

However, we affirm the written order revoking Appellant’s community control and the seven-year prison term. We find harmless the error on the part of the trial judge in mistakenly basing Appellant’s sentence on four, rather than three, probation violations, because Appellant’s sentence was still within the permitted range for one having three prior probation violations. To rectify this error, the case is remanded to the trial judge ⅛ order that the court may correct the guidelines seoresheet to reflect the proper number of violations,

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ„ and OFTEDAL, RICHARD L., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Rodney Johnston, appeals from written orders revoking community control and probation, and from a seven-year prison term. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Appellant correctly argues that the order revoking probation should be vacated because no formal charge of violation of probation had been filed. This issue may be raised for the first time on appeal because it rises to the level of fundamental error. Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So.2d 134 (Fla.1970). Accordingly, the trial court’s order revoking Appellant’s probation is reversed.

However, we affirm the written order revoking Appellant’s community control and the seven-year prison term. We find harmless the error on the part of the trial judge in mistakenly basing Appellant’s sentence on four, rather than three, probation violations, because Appellant’s sentence was still within the permitted range for one having three prior probation violations. To rectify this error, the case is remanded to the trial judge ⅛ order that the court may correct the guidelines seoresheet to reflect the proper number of violations,

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ„ and OFTEDAL, RICHARD L., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

684 So. 2d 262, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12749, 1996 WL 692152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnston-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack