Nails v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nails v. State

899 So. 2d 1287, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6125, 2005 WL 991402

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 2005

DocketNos. 1D04-0319, 1D04-0322

StatusPublished

This text of 899 So. 2d 1287 (Nails 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

Nails v. State, 899 So. 2d 1287, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6125, 2005 WL 991402 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWNING, J.

We affirm without additional comment Appellant’s convictions and sentences in Case No. 1D04-319. In Case No. 1D04-322, Appellant challenges the final order revoking his probation. Competent substantial evidence in the record established that Appellant violated Condition (5) of his terms of probation by committing the crimes for which he was convicted in Case No. 1D04-319. We affirm the probation [1288]*1288revocation order and remand to the trial court with instructions to strike the reference to Condition (10) in the written revocation order. See McCloud v. State, 765 So.2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The transcript of the revocation hearing indicates that the State elected not to argue a violation of Condition (10), but to focus solely on Condition (5), to which the trial court orally agreed. No evidence was offered relating to an alleged violation of Condition (10). Appellant need not be present for the correction of this scrivener’s error. See Jones v. State, 390 So.2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

We AFFIRM the convictions and sentences in Case No. 1D04-319 and the probation revocation order in Case No. 1D04-322 and REMAND with instructions to the trial court to strike the reference to Condition (10) in the written revocation order.

WOLF, C.J., and DAVIS, J., concur.

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

BROWNING, J.

We affirm without additional comment Appellant’s convictions and sentences in Case No. 1D04-319. In Case No. 1D04-322, Appellant challenges the final order revoking his probation. Competent substantial evidence in the record established that Appellant violated Condition (5) of his terms of probation by committing the crimes for which he was convicted in Case No. 1D04-319. We affirm the probation [1288]*1288revocation order and remand to the trial court with instructions to strike the reference to Condition (10) in the written revocation order. See McCloud v. State, 765 So.2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The transcript of the revocation hearing indicates that the State elected not to argue a violation of Condition (10), but to focus solely on Condition (5), to which the trial court orally agreed. No evidence was offered relating to an alleged violation of Condition (10). Appellant need not be present for the correction of this scrivener’s error. See Jones v. State, 390 So.2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

We AFFIRM the convictions and sentences in Case No. 1D04-319 and the probation revocation order in Case No. 1D04-322 and REMAND with instructions to the trial court to strike the reference to Condition (10) in the written revocation order.

WOLF, C.J., and DAVIS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

899 So. 2d 1287, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6125, 2005 WL 991402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nails-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack