Landry v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Landry v. State

380 So. 2d 1191, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15680

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 1980

DocketNo. 78-2333/T4-271

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 380 So. 2d 1191 (Landry 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

Landry v. State, 380 So. 2d 1191, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15680 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an Order of the Circuit Court of Orange County revoking Appellant’s probation.

At the hearing the trial judge announced that he found Landry in violation of Conditions 1, 2, and 6, of Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt and Placing Defendant on Probation. The Court announced that it “particularly” found that Defendant had not violated Condition 5, but contrary to such finding the Order of Revocation of Probation from which this appeal is taken held that Defendant had also violated Condition 5. This erroneous finding can only be a clerical error which we hold was harmless. Violation of the other three conditions was a sufficient basis for the revocation. No abuse of the trial court’s discretion was shown. Crossin v. State, 244 So.2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Bernhardt v. State, 288 So.2d 490 (Fla.1974).

We therefore AFFIRM the Order of Revocation, but REMAND for correction of the clerical error.

CROSS, ORFINGER and UPCHURCH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an Order of the Circuit Court of Orange County revoking Appellant’s probation.

At the hearing the trial judge announced that he found Landry in violation of Conditions 1, 2, and 6, of Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt and Placing Defendant on Probation. The Court announced that it “particularly” found that Defendant had not violated Condition 5, but contrary to such finding the Order of Revocation of Probation from which this appeal is taken held that Defendant had also violated Condition 5. This erroneous finding can only be a clerical error which we hold was harmless. Violation of the other three conditions was a sufficient basis for the revocation. No abuse of the trial court’s discretion was shown. Crossin v. State, 244 So.2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Bernhardt v. State, 288 So.2d 490 (Fla.1974).

We therefore AFFIRM the Order of Revocation, but REMAND for correction of the clerical error.

CROSS, ORFINGER and UPCHURCH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

380 So. 2d 1191, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landry-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack