Longmire v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Longmire v. State

456 So. 2d 560, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2061, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15249

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 26, 1984

DocketNo. AW-478

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 456 So. 2d 560 (Longmire 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

Longmire v. State, 456 So. 2d 560, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2061, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15249 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order revoking appellant’s probation is affirmed. However, the case is remanded to the trial court for correction of an obvious error in the revocation order. The affidavit charged several substantial violations of probation. One of the alleged violations was the commission of a burglary. At the revocation hearing, however, the state chose to rely upon the other violations and produced no evidence pertaining [561]*561to the alleged burglary. Although the revocation order recites that the appellant had violated his probation “as charged in the affidavit,” it is apparent that the court did not intend that its order encompass the burglary charge, there having been no evidence presented pertaining to that charge. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court for the entry of an amended revocation order which expressly recognizes that the appellant was not found to have violated his probation by committing the alleged burglary. The appellant’s presence before the trial court shall not be required in connection with the entry of the amended order as required herein.

Affirmed and Remanded to the trial court for the entry of an amended order.

SHIVERS, WENTWORTH and NIM-MONS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order revoking appellant’s probation is affirmed. However, the case is remanded to the trial court for correction of an obvious error in the revocation order. The affidavit charged several substantial violations of probation. One of the alleged violations was the commission of a burglary. At the revocation hearing, however, the state chose to rely upon the other violations and produced no evidence pertaining [561]*561to the alleged burglary. Although the revocation order recites that the appellant had violated his probation “as charged in the affidavit,” it is apparent that the court did not intend that its order encompass the burglary charge, there having been no evidence presented pertaining to that charge. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court for the entry of an amended revocation order which expressly recognizes that the appellant was not found to have violated his probation by committing the alleged burglary. The appellant’s presence before the trial court shall not be required in connection with the entry of the amended order as required herein.

Affirmed and Remanded to the trial court for the entry of an amended order.

SHIVERS, WENTWORTH and NIM-MONS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 So. 2d 560, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2061, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/longmire-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack