Rusu v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rusu v. State

370 So. 2d 79, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14512

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 25, 1979

DocketNo. 78-2127

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 370 So. 2d 79 (Rusu 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

Rusu v. State, 370 So. 2d 79, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14512 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s probation supervisor filed an affidavit charging appellant with violating conditions (e) and (h) of his probation. At the hearing on the affidavit, the trial court found that appellant had violated condition (h) and revoked probation. We affirm that revocation, but we remand the case for correction of the written revocation order.

Owing to an apparent clerical error, the order recites that appellant violated not only condition (h) but also condition (e). Since at the hearing the court only found that appellant had violated condition (h), it should now remove any reference to condition (e) from its order. Brewster v. State, 352 So.2d 1267 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).

GRIMES, C. J., and HOBSON and SCHEB, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s probation supervisor filed an affidavit charging appellant with violating conditions (e) and (h) of his probation. At the hearing on the affidavit, the trial court found that appellant had violated condition (h) and revoked probation. We affirm that revocation, but we remand the case for correction of the written revocation order.

Owing to an apparent clerical error, the order recites that appellant violated not only condition (h) but also condition (e). Since at the hearing the court only found that appellant had violated condition (h), it should now remove any reference to condition (e) from its order. Brewster v. State, 352 So.2d 1267 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).

GRIMES, C. J., and HOBSON and SCHEB, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 So. 2d 79, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rusu-v-state-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack