Rosales v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rosales v. State

818 So. 2d 684, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8416, 2002 WL 1300056

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 14, 2002

DocketNo. 2D01-1402

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 818 So. 2d 684 (Rosales 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

Rosales v. State, 818 So. 2d 684, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8416, 2002 WL 1300056 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Anthony Victor Rosales appeals the trial court’s restitution order. His counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, [685]*685386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), acknowledging that there are no meritorious grounds for reversal but suggesting that remand is required to correct the probation order entered by the trial court. We affirm the order of restitution without comment; however, we remand for entry of a corrected probation order.

During the pendency of this appeal, Rosales filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) challenging a special condition of probation that was not orally pronounced by the trial court during sentencing. The trial court granted the motion and directed the clerk of the circuit court to prepare a corrected probation order. The record does not reflect that the probation order was corrected, and the State concedes that remand is appropriate. See Grove v. State, 784 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Therefore, we affirm the order of restitution but remand with directions that the trial court enter a corrected probation order striking the requirement that Rosales pay for. drug, alcohol, and controlled substance testing.

SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., concur.

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

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Anthony Victor Rosales appeals the trial court’s restitution order. His counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, [685]*685386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), acknowledging that there are no meritorious grounds for reversal but suggesting that remand is required to correct the probation order entered by the trial court. We affirm the order of restitution without comment; however, we remand for entry of a corrected probation order.

During the pendency of this appeal, Rosales filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) challenging a special condition of probation that was not orally pronounced by the trial court during sentencing. The trial court granted the motion and directed the clerk of the circuit court to prepare a corrected probation order. The record does not reflect that the probation order was corrected, and the State concedes that remand is appropriate. See Grove v. State, 784 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Therefore, we affirm the order of restitution but remand with directions that the trial court enter a corrected probation order striking the requirement that Rosales pay for. drug, alcohol, and controlled substance testing.

SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

818 So. 2d 684, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8416, 2002 WL 1300056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosales-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack