Rose v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rose v. State

308 So. 2d 119

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 25, 1975

DocketNo. U-392

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 308 So. 2d 119 (Rose 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

Rose v. State, 308 So. 2d 119 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of the Order revoking his probation and the judgment and sentence entered thereon, contending that there was insufficient evidence to support said order of revocation.

We have carefully examined the record on appeal, the transcript of the hearing and the briefs submitted by counsel. Upon our consideration thereof, we conclude that there was sufficient, competent evidence to support the decision of the trial judge that appellant had violated the conditions of his probation. Appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error in the proceedings below, the Order revoking probation and the judgment and sentence appealed herein are affirmed.

JOHNSON, Acting C. J., and BOYER and McCORD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of the Order revoking his probation and the judgment and sentence entered thereon, contending that there was insufficient evidence to support said order of revocation.

We have carefully examined the record on appeal, the transcript of the hearing and the briefs submitted by counsel. Upon our consideration thereof, we conclude that there was sufficient, competent evidence to support the decision of the trial judge that appellant had violated the conditions of his probation. Appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error in the proceedings below, the Order revoking probation and the judgment and sentence appealed herein are affirmed.

JOHNSON, Acting C. J., and BOYER and McCORD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 So. 2d 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-state-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack