O'Brien v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

O'Brien v. State

741 So. 2d 643, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13201, 1999 WL 817807

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in O'Brien v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 689 So. 2d 336 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 6, 1999·No. No. 98-4431·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s, James O’Brien, revocation of probation. See Williams v. State, 563 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). However, appellee concedes, and we agree, that the order revoking probation must be corrected since it erroneously reflects that appellant violated all six of his conditions of probation. In actuality, the court found that appellant violated only two conditions of probation. Hence, the written order must conform to the court’s pronounce[644]*644ment. See Gonzalez v. State, 712 So.2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

Affirmed; Remanded with directions.

POLEN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s, James O’Brien, revocation of probation. See Williams v. State, 563 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). However, appellee concedes, and we agree, that the order revoking probation must be corrected since it erroneously reflects that appellant violated all six of his conditions of probation. In actuality, the court found that appellant violated only two conditions of probation. Hence, the written order must conform to the court’s pronounce[644]*644ment. See Gonzalez v. State, 712 So.2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

Affirmed; Remanded with directions.

POLEN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

O'Brien v. State, 741 So. 2d 643, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13201, 1999 WL 817807 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

741 So. 2d 643 (O'Brien v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related