Matyisin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Matyisin v. State

523 So. 2d 809, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1022, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1628, 1988 WL 36890

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 27, 1988

DocketNo. 87-2581

StatusPublished

This text of 523 So. 2d 809 (Matyisin 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

Matyisin v. State, 523 So. 2d 809, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1022, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1628, 1988 WL 36890 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court revoked probation which had been accorded Michael Matyisin. He appeals. We affirm the revocation order after modifying same in the manner hereinafter provided.

The affidavit of violation of probation and warrant listed seven violations of probation. A hearing was conducted. Upon proof presented, the trial court found and announced that Matyisin had violated grounds I, II, V and VI and that he would be sentenced to thirty months based on those violations. The trial court thereupon did enter its formal written order of revocation which order erroneously listed all seven grounds, as found in the affidavit of violation of probation, as the basis for revocation.

The record here clearly reflects that the trial court intended to revoke probation solely on grounds I, II, V and VI. Thus, this Court hereby strikes grounds III, IV and VII from the order of revocation and affirms the order as amended. Molly v. State, 490 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Terrell v. State, 480 So.2d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); May v. State, 472 So.2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

The order appealed is amended and thus, the same is

AFFIRMED.

HERSEY, C.J., and DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court revoked probation which had been accorded Michael Matyisin. He appeals. We affirm the revocation order after modifying same in the manner hereinafter provided.

The affidavit of violation of probation and warrant listed seven violations of probation. A hearing was conducted. Upon proof presented, the trial court found and announced that Matyisin had violated grounds I, II, V and VI and that he would be sentenced to thirty months based on those violations. The trial court thereupon did enter its formal written order of revocation which order erroneously listed all seven grounds, as found in the affidavit of violation of probation, as the basis for revocation.

The record here clearly reflects that the trial court intended to revoke probation solely on grounds I, II, V and VI. Thus, this Court hereby strikes grounds III, IV and VII from the order of revocation and affirms the order as amended. Molly v. State, 490 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Terrell v. State, 480 So.2d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); May v. State, 472 So.2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

The order appealed is amended and thus, the same is

AFFIRMED.

HERSEY, C.J., and DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 So. 2d 809, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1022, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1628, 1988 WL 36890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matyisin-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack