Miller v. State

711 So. 2d 1357, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7140, 1998 WL 314601
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Miller v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 667 So. 2d 325
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 17, 1998·No. No. 96-05311·Published

Opinion

CASANUEVA, Judge.

We affirm the finding of the trial court that Mr. Miller willfully and substantially violated his probation. See Hightower v. State, 529 So.2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We must remand, however, for the trial court to enter a written order documenting the specific conditions of probation that Mr. Miller violated. See Remich v. State, 696 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). On remand, as contended by the appellant and as conceded by the State, Mr. Miller’s sentence must be corrected to reflect that he is to serve the suspended portion of his sentence on count II, a term of one year rather than thirty months.

FULMER, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J„ concur.

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

Miller v. State, 711 So. 2d 1357, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7140, 1998 WL 314601 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

711 So. 2d 1357 (Miller v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hightower v. State
529 So. 2d 726 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Remich v. State
696 So. 2d 1270 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)