Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/KULO v. State

KULO v. State

83 So. 3d 979, 2012 WL 966632, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4571
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 23, 2012
Docket5D11-2318
StatusPublished

This text of 83 So. 3d 979 (KULO 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
KULO v. State, 83 So. 3d 979, 2012 WL 966632, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4571 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in all respects. We remand, however, for correction of a scrivener’s error. The order reflects that the appellant violated conditions of probation 6 and 8. The record demonstrates, however, that he was found to have violated condition 5 and a special condition concerning attendance at AA meetings. The order on remand should be corrected as indicated.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

PALMER, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Shade v. State
83 So. 3d 979 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 So. 3d 979, 2012 WL 966632, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kulo-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.