Revear v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Revear v. State

812 So. 2d 575, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4193, 2002 WL 490704

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 2002

DocketNo. 2D00-2313

StatusPublished

This text of 812 So. 2d 575 (Revear 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

Revear v. State, 812 So. 2d 575, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4193, 2002 WL 490704 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

WHATLEY, Judge.

Walter Revear, III, appeals an order of revocation of probation. We affirm the trial court’s finding that Revear was in violation of his probation. However, we remand the case because the record reflects a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral findings and the written order of revocation. At the hearing on the violation, the trial court found Revear in violation of only condition four. However, the order of revocation of probation incorrectly states that Revear was found in violation of conditions four and eight. See Baldasare v. State, 363 So.2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (remanding order of revocation of probation where there was a discrepancy between trial court’s oral findings and the written revocation order). Therefore, we remand this cause for the purpose of striking that portion of the order of revocation [576]*576of probation stating that Revear was found in violation of condition eight. The order is otherwise affirmed.

Revear need not be present for the correction.

SALCINES, and COVINGTON, JJ„ Concur.

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

WHATLEY, Judge.

Walter Revear, III, appeals an order of revocation of probation. We affirm the trial court’s finding that Revear was in violation of his probation. However, we remand the case because the record reflects a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral findings and the written order of revocation. At the hearing on the violation, the trial court found Revear in violation of only condition four. However, the order of revocation of probation incorrectly states that Revear was found in violation of conditions four and eight. See Baldasare v. State, 363 So.2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (remanding order of revocation of probation where there was a discrepancy between trial court’s oral findings and the written revocation order). Therefore, we remand this cause for the purpose of striking that portion of the order of revocation [576]*576of probation stating that Revear was found in violation of condition eight. The order is otherwise affirmed.

Revear need not be present for the correction.

SALCINES, and COVINGTON, JJ„ Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

812 So. 2d 575, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4193, 2002 WL 490704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/revear-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack