Kuczko v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kuczko v. State

76 So. 3d 357, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20060, 2011 WL 6268236

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 16, 2011

DocketNo. 2D10-5003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 So. 3d 357 (Kuczko 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

Kuczko v. State, 76 So. 3d 357, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20060, 2011 WL 6268236 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, Judge.

Joseph Edward Kuczko challenges the revocation of his probation based on his having committed a new law violation. We affirm both the revocation and the resulting sentence without further comment. However, the written order of revocation reflects that Kuczko violated two conditions of his probation, while the transcript of the revocation hearing shows that his probation was revoked based on the violation of only one condition. We therefore remand for the limited purpose of the entry of a corrected written order of revocation which conforms with the oral pronouncement. See Harvester v. State, 62 So.3d 1235, 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); McNeil v. State, 908 So.2d 556, 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Affirmed and remanded for entry of a corrected order.

VILLANTI and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

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

DAVIS, Judge.

Joseph Edward Kuczko challenges the revocation of his probation based on his having committed a new law violation. We affirm both the revocation and the resulting sentence without further comment. However, the written order of revocation reflects that Kuczko violated two conditions of his probation, while the transcript of the revocation hearing shows that his probation was revoked based on the violation of only one condition. We therefore remand for the limited purpose of the entry of a corrected written order of revocation which conforms with the oral pronouncement. See Harvester v. State, 62 So.3d 1235, 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); McNeil v. State, 908 So.2d 556, 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Affirmed and remanded for entry of a corrected order.

VILLANTI and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 So. 3d 357, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20060, 2011 WL 6268236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kuczko-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack