O.L.T. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

O.L.T. v. State

912 So. 2d 680, 2005 WL 2649246

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 18, 2005

DocketNo. 1D05-2195

StatusPublished

This text of 912 So. 2d 680 (O.L.T. 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

O.L.T. v. State, 912 So. 2d 680, 2005 WL 2649246 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWNING, J.

Appellant challenges his sentences for battery and criminal mischief on revocation of probation, alleging that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose those sentences. We agree, because Appellant had finished serving those sentences before the most recent affidavit of violation of probation was filed. See Aponte v. State, 896 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). The state has conceded the issue.

However, the order of revocation was not wholly erroneous because Appellant did violate probation on certain other offenses. Accordingly, we REVERSE the sentence only as to lower court case numbers 02-181 and 02-1067, and REMAND for this change to be made. Because the deletion of these two sentences is merely a ministerial act, Appellant need not be present. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 387 So.2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

DAVIS and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

BROWNING, J.

Appellant challenges his sentences for battery and criminal mischief on revocation of probation, alleging that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose those sentences. We agree, because Appellant had finished serving those sentences before the most recent affidavit of violation of probation was filed. See Aponte v. State, 896 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). The state has conceded the issue.

However, the order of revocation was not wholly erroneous because Appellant did violate probation on certain other offenses. Accordingly, we REVERSE the sentence only as to lower court case numbers 02-181 and 02-1067, and REMAND for this change to be made. Because the deletion of these two sentences is merely a ministerial act, Appellant need not be present. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 387 So.2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

DAVIS and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

912 So. 2d 680, 2005 WL 2649246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olt-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack