Krug v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Krug v. State

689 So. 2d 391, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1706, 1997 WL 80349

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 26, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1780

StatusPublished

This text of 689 So. 2d 391 (Krug 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

Krug v. State, 689 So. 2d 391, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1706, 1997 WL 80349 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On August 11, 1992 the Appellant was sentenced to two years of community control to be followed by a term of probation of fifteen years. On May 28,1996 the appellant noticed a motion for early termination of probation. At the hearing, evidence was introduced to establish that the appellant had been a model probationer and that he deserved to have his probation terminated. After conducting a thorough evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that under the provisions of Section 948.04, Florida Statutes, it did not have jurisdiction to terminate a probationary period imposed for a violation of Florida Statute, Chapter 794. The appel-lee properly concedes that this was error. Arriaga v. State, 666 So.2d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Jones v. State, 666 So.2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Baker v. State, 619 So.2d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

[392]*392We decline the appellant’s invitation to terminate his probation and remand to the trial court for a ruling on the merits of the motion in question.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

On August 11, 1992 the Appellant was sentenced to two years of community control to be followed by a term of probation of fifteen years. On May 28,1996 the appellant noticed a motion for early termination of probation. At the hearing, evidence was introduced to establish that the appellant had been a model probationer and that he deserved to have his probation terminated. After conducting a thorough evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that under the provisions of Section 948.04, Florida Statutes, it did not have jurisdiction to terminate a probationary period imposed for a violation of Florida Statute, Chapter 794. The appel-lee properly concedes that this was error. Arriaga v. State, 666 So.2d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Jones v. State, 666 So.2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Baker v. State, 619 So.2d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

[392]*392We decline the appellant’s invitation to terminate his probation and remand to the trial court for a ruling on the merits of the motion in question.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

689 So. 2d 391, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1706, 1997 WL 80349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krug-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack