Nickolas v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nickolas v. State

66 So. 3d 1077, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12385, 2011 WL 3464394

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 9, 2011

Docket1D10-6231

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 66 So. 3d 1077 (Nickolas 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

Nickolas v. State, 66 So. 3d 1077, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12385, 2011 WL 3464394 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders 1 appeal, we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence, but remand for the trial court to correct the order revoking his probation. Although the State alleged that Appellant violated his probation by committing five new law offenses, the lower court found that the evidence supported revocation based only on the offense of resisting an officer with violence. The revocation order provides, however, that Appellant violated the conditions of his probation by committing all five offenses. We, therefore, remand for the trial court to correct the revocation order. See Washington v. State, 37 So.3d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming a judgment and sentence in an Anders appeal but remanding for the court to correct a revocation order reflecting the appropriate condition violated); Leggs v. State, 27 So.3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming, in an Anders appeal, the appellant’s judgment and sentence, but remanding with directions that the trial court enter an order specifying the conditions of probation violated). Appellant need not be present. See Baldwin v. State, 855 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (remanding for entry of a written revocation order conforming to the oral pronouncement in an Anders appeal).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

THOMAS, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ„ concur.

1

. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

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

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders 1 appeal, we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence, but remand for the trial court to correct the order revoking his probation. Although the State alleged that Appellant violated his probation by committing five new law offenses, the lower court found that the evidence supported revocation based only on the offense of resisting an officer with violence. The revocation order provides, however, that Appellant violated the conditions of his probation by committing all five offenses. We, therefore, remand for the trial court to correct the revocation order. See Washington v. State, 37 So.3d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming a judgment and sentence in an Anders appeal but remanding for the court to correct a revocation order reflecting the appropriate condition violated); Leggs v. State, 27 So.3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming, in an Anders appeal, the appellant’s judgment and sentence, but remanding with directions that the trial court enter an order specifying the conditions of probation violated). Appellant need not be present. See Baldwin v. State, 855 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (remanding for entry of a written revocation order conforming to the oral pronouncement in an Anders appeal).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

THOMAS, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ„ concur.

1

. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 So. 3d 1077, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12385, 2011 WL 3464394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nickolas-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack