Mosley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mosley v. State

735 So. 2d 547, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6814, 1999 WL 333155

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 26, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1782

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 735 So. 2d 547 (Mosley 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

Mosley v. State, 735 So. 2d 547, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6814, 1999 WL 333155 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the revocation of probation, but remand to the trial court for the entry of a written order. See Babb v. State, 720 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Bingham v. State, 719 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). The probation officer’s testimony [548]*548was sufficient for the trial court to conclude that appellant had changed his residence without his probation officer’s permission. See McPherson v. State, 530 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); McNealy v. State, 479 So.2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Cito v. State, 721 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), relied upon by appellant, is distinguishable. In Cito, the only evidence of the violation was the probation officer’s testimony that the probationer’s mother did not know where he was; there was no evidence, as in this case, that the officer could not make contact with the probationer after- visiting the residence numerous times and leaving several messages which were never answered.

Affirmed and remanded for entry of a written order.

KLEIN, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the revocation of probation, but remand to the trial court for the entry of a written order. See Babb v. State, 720 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Bingham v. State, 719 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). The probation officer’s testimony [548]*548was sufficient for the trial court to conclude that appellant had changed his residence without his probation officer’s permission. See McPherson v. State, 530 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); McNealy v. State, 479 So.2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Cito v. State, 721 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), relied upon by appellant, is distinguishable. In Cito, the only evidence of the violation was the probation officer’s testimony that the probationer’s mother did not know where he was; there was no evidence, as in this case, that the officer could not make contact with the probationer after- visiting the residence numerous times and leaving several messages which were never answered.

Affirmed and remanded for entry of a written order.

KLEIN, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

735 So. 2d 547, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6814, 1999 WL 333155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mosley-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack