Segarra v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Segarra v. State

530 So. 2d 492, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2076, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3894, 1988 WL 90407

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 2, 1988·No. No. 87-1912·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.

The defendant challenges the revocation of his probation, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to establish a violation. We find his arguments unpersuasive. The written order of revocation fails, however, to indicate the grounds of Segarra’s probation violation although at the sentencing hearing the trial court made such a statement. Therefore, we affirm the revocation of the defendant’s probation but remand for the trial court to enter a proper written order corresponding with its oral pronouncement. Brown v. State, 429 So.2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

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

SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.

The defendant challenges the revocation of his probation, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to establish a violation. We find his arguments unpersuasive. The written order of revocation fails, however, to indicate the grounds of Segarra’s probation violation although at the sentencing hearing the trial court made such a statement. Therefore, we affirm the revocation of the defendant’s probation but remand for the trial court to enter a proper written order corresponding with its oral pronouncement. Brown v. State, 429 So.2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

Segarra v. State, 530 So. 2d 492, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2076, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3894, 1988 WL 90407 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

530 So. 2d 492 (Segarra v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related