Robbins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Robbins v. State

54 So. 3d 574, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1431, 2011 WL 362236

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 7, 2011

Docket1D10-1796

StatusPublished

This text of 54 So. 3d 574 (Robbins 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

Robbins v. State, 54 So. 3d 574, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1431, 2011 WL 362236 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER curiam:.

In this appeal briefed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the appellant appeals the order entered by the trial court which revoked his probation based on his admission that he violated a number of conditions of probation. The order revoking probation erroneously indicates that the appellant violated condition five by committing a new law violation. 1 However, while the appellant admitted other violations, the state specifically dismissed the allegation that the appellant violated condition five. Thus, we affirm the appellant’s convictions and sentences, but remand for entry of a corrected revocation order which omits reference to a violation of condition five. 2 See, e.g., Campbell v. State, 972 So.2d 263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (affirming order revoking probation but remanding for court to correct order to show correct ground for revocation).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions to enter a corrected revocation order.

KAHN, PADOVANO, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

1

. The issue was preserved for appeal by the filing of a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion.

2

. The order should also be corrected to reflect that a sentence of 31.5 months' imprisonment was imposed.

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

PER curiam:.

In this appeal briefed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the appellant appeals the order entered by the trial court which revoked his probation based on his admission that he violated a number of conditions of probation. The order revoking probation erroneously indicates that the appellant violated condition five by committing a new law violation. 1 However, while the appellant admitted other violations, the state specifically dismissed the allegation that the appellant violated condition five. Thus, we affirm the appellant’s convictions and sentences, but remand for entry of a corrected revocation order which omits reference to a violation of condition five. 2 See, e.g., Campbell v. State, 972 So.2d 263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (affirming order revoking probation but remanding for court to correct order to show correct ground for revocation).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions to enter a corrected revocation order.

KAHN, PADOVANO, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

1

. The issue was preserved for appeal by the filing of a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion.

2

. The order should also be corrected to reflect that a sentence of 31.5 months' imprisonment was imposed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 So. 3d 574, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1431, 2011 WL 362236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robbins-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack