Odom v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Odom v. State

90 So. 3d 847, 2012 WL 1759379, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7992

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 18, 2012

DocketNo. 2D11-2075

StatusPublished

This text of 90 So. 3d 847 (Odom 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

Odom v. State, 90 So. 3d 847, 2012 WL 1759379, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7992 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, Judge.

Dustin D. Odom challenges the thirty-six-month prison term imposed following a revocation of his community control for the original offense of possession of a controlled substance. The only issue raised by Odom’s counsel and answered by the State is related to the possession issue discussed in State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011). But Odom’s revocation [848]*848was based on a technical violation and does not involve any possession-related new law violations. Because the Adkins issue relates only to his underlying conviction and not to the revocation and sentence currently before this court, we affirm Odom’s revocation and resulting sentence without further comment.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

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

DAVIS, Judge.

Dustin D. Odom challenges the thirty-six-month prison term imposed following a revocation of his community control for the original offense of possession of a controlled substance. The only issue raised by Odom’s counsel and answered by the State is related to the possession issue discussed in State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011). But Odom’s revocation [848]*848was based on a technical violation and does not involve any possession-related new law violations. Because the Adkins issue relates only to his underlying conviction and not to the revocation and sentence currently before this court, we affirm Odom’s revocation and resulting sentence without further comment.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 So. 3d 847, 2012 WL 1759379, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odom-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack