Ramirez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ramirez v. State

704 So. 2d 693, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14336, 1997 WL 824823

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 24, 1997

DocketNo. 96-02544

StatusPublished

This text of 704 So. 2d 693 (Ramirez 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

Ramirez v. State, 704 So. 2d 693, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14336, 1997 WL 824823 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant’s claim that his probation was revoked for a violation of a condition of probation that was not imposed upon him is without merit as shown by the transcript of the revocation hearing. However, he is correct in that the written judgment contains an erroneous reference to the condition violated. We affirm the conviction and sentence but remand for correction of the written order to conform to the oral pronouncement by the trial court at the revocation hearing. See Pearce v. State, 677 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The appellant need not be present for [694]*694this correction as it essentially deals with a scrivener’s error.

Affirmed.

FRANK and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

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

DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant’s claim that his probation was revoked for a violation of a condition of probation that was not imposed upon him is without merit as shown by the transcript of the revocation hearing. However, he is correct in that the written judgment contains an erroneous reference to the condition violated. We affirm the conviction and sentence but remand for correction of the written order to conform to the oral pronouncement by the trial court at the revocation hearing. See Pearce v. State, 677 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The appellant need not be present for [694]*694this correction as it essentially deals with a scrivener’s error.

Affirmed.

FRANK and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

704 So. 2d 693, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14336, 1997 WL 824823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack