Moses v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moses v. State

107 So. 3d 1224, 2013 WL 645620, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2956

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 22, 2013

DocketNo. 5D12-781

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 107 So. 3d 1224 (Moses 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

Moses v. State, 107 So. 3d 1224, 2013 WL 645620, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2956 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State properly concedes that the trial court erred in finding that Appellant violated Conditions 2 and 15 of his probation. However, there was competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determination that Appellant willfully violated Condition 5 by committing a new crime. Our review of the record convinces us that based only on the finding that Appellant had willfully violated Condition 5, the trial court would have revoked Appellant’s probation and imposed the same sentence. Accordingly, remand for reconsideration of the order revoking probation or the sentence is not necessary. Lawson v. State, 941 So.2d 485, 488 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), approved, 969 So.2d 222 (Fla.2007).

AFFIRMED; Findings as to Conditions 2 and 15 STRICKEN.

ORFINGER, C.J., SAWAYA and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State properly concedes that the trial court erred in finding that Appellant violated Conditions 2 and 15 of his probation. However, there was competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determination that Appellant willfully violated Condition 5 by committing a new crime. Our review of the record convinces us that based only on the finding that Appellant had willfully violated Condition 5, the trial court would have revoked Appellant’s probation and imposed the same sentence. Accordingly, remand for reconsideration of the order revoking probation or the sentence is not necessary. Lawson v. State, 941 So.2d 485, 488 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), approved, 969 So.2d 222 (Fla.2007).

AFFIRMED; Findings as to Conditions 2 and 15 STRICKEN.

ORFINGER, C.J., SAWAYA and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 So. 3d 1224, 2013 WL 645620, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moses-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack