McBride v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McBride v. State

842 So. 2d 216, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4471, 2003 WL 1738416

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-1492

StatusPublished

This text of 842 So. 2d 216 (McBride 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

McBride v. State, 842 So. 2d 216, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4471, 2003 WL 1738416 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This direct criminal appeal was brought pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Upon our independent examination of the entire record, we agree that no reversible error occurred. We affirm Appellant’s revocation of probation and imposition of judgment and sentence. However, the written order of revocation of probation does not state which conditions of supervision Appellant violated, nor does the written order state the sentence imposed upon revocation. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to enter such an order, consistent with its oral pronouncement. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 832 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Oliver v. State, 819 So.2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, BENTON and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This direct criminal appeal was brought pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Upon our independent examination of the entire record, we agree that no reversible error occurred. We affirm Appellant’s revocation of probation and imposition of judgment and sentence. However, the written order of revocation of probation does not state which conditions of supervision Appellant violated, nor does the written order state the sentence imposed upon revocation. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to enter such an order, consistent with its oral pronouncement. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 832 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Oliver v. State, 819 So.2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, BENTON and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

842 So. 2d 216, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4471, 2003 WL 1738416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcbride-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack