KULO v. State

83 So. 3d 979, 2012 WL 966632, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4571
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 23, 2012·No. 5D11-2318·Published

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

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

83 So. 3d 979 (KULO v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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