McDonald v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McDonald v. State

409 So. 2d 224, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19122

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 4, 1982

DocketNo. AB-354

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 409 So. 2d 224 (McDonald 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

McDonald v. State, 409 So. 2d 224, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19122 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order revoking appellant’s probation. However, we remand for correction of the harmless clerical error finding that appellant violated Condition No. 8 of his probation because the alleged violation of Condition No. 8 was dismissed by the trial court at the evidentiary hearing below. Grant v. State, 384 So.2d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Landry v. State, 380 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Violation of the other two probation conditions was a sufficient basis for revocation of appellant’s probation and no abuse of the trial court’s discretion was shown.

Accordingly, the order of revocation is AFFIRMED but REMANDED with instructions to correct the clerical error.

BOOTH, SHIVERS, and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order revoking appellant’s probation. However, we remand for correction of the harmless clerical error finding that appellant violated Condition No. 8 of his probation because the alleged violation of Condition No. 8 was dismissed by the trial court at the evidentiary hearing below. Grant v. State, 384 So.2d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Landry v. State, 380 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Violation of the other two probation conditions was a sufficient basis for revocation of appellant’s probation and no abuse of the trial court’s discretion was shown.

Accordingly, the order of revocation is AFFIRMED but REMANDED with instructions to correct the clerical error.

BOOTH, SHIVERS, and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 So. 2d 224, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack