Kirk v. State
This text of 400 So. 2d 540 (Kirk 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.
Opinion
Michael KIRK, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Alan R. Dakan, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
*541 Before HUBBART, C.J., and BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The order revoking the appellant's probation is affirmed upon a holding that (a) the evidence adduced below at the probation revocation hearing was sufficient to satisfy the conscience of the court that the appellant had violated his probation by committing an attempted burglary, see e.g., Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682, 32 So.2d 607 (1947); Randolph v. State, 292 So.2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 300 So.2d 901 (Fla. 1974); and (b) the record presented upon appeal does not reflect error in the trial court's failure to sentence the appellant under the Youth Offender Act although the affirmance here is without prejudice to the appellant to seek post-conviction relief in the trial court under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850 on this issue. See e.g., Cannon v. State, 384 So.2d 970 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
400 So. 2d 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirk-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.