Milbry v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Milbry v. State

768 So. 2d 524, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11431, 2000 WL 1269289

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 8, 2000·No. No. 2D99-1775·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the sentence imposed on violation of community control. The trial court failed to prepare an order on the violations of probation. Thus, we reverse the trial court to the extent that it must prepare a written order on the violations on remand. Because the State failed to prove a violation of condition 3, just as it had failed to prove that condition in a previous appeal, Milbry v. State, 722 So.2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), the order on remand should reflect a violation of only condition 12.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W„ (Senior) Judge, Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the sentence imposed on violation of community control. The trial court failed to prepare an order on the violations of probation. Thus, we reverse the trial court to the extent that it must prepare a written order on the violations on remand. Because the State failed to prove a violation of condition 3, just as it had failed to prove that condition in a previous appeal, Milbry v. State, 722 So.2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), the order on remand should reflect a violation of only condition 12.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W„ (Senior) Judge, Concur.

Milbry v. State, 768 So. 2d 524, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11431, 2000 WL 1269289 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

768 So. 2d 524 (Milbry v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related