Sentmanat v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sentmanat v. State

752 So. 2d 1282, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2918, 2000 WL 283089

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 17, 2000

DocketNo. 2D97-4902

StatusPublished

This text of 752 So. 2d 1282 (Sentmanat 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

Sentmanat v. State, 752 So. 2d 1282, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2918, 2000 WL 283089 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, Judge.

Noemi Sentmanat appeals the trial court’s revocation of her .community control. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court properly ruled that Sentmanat violated community control condition three by leaving her approved place of residence without obtaining her probation officer’s permission. We write only to correct the written order, which does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. The written order erroneously lists violations of conditions nine and twelve, when the record shows that the trial court specifically found no support for those charges. Therefore, we remand this case to the trial court to correct the written order. See Dunkin v. State, 706 So.2d 942, 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Narvaez v. State, 674 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Sentmanat need not be present for the entry of the amended revocation order. See Narvaez, 674 So.2d at 869.

Affirmed and remanded with directions.

PATTERSON, C.J., and THREADGILL, J., Concur.

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

DAVIS, Judge.

Noemi Sentmanat appeals the trial court’s revocation of her .community control. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court properly ruled that Sentmanat violated community control condition three by leaving her approved place of residence without obtaining her probation officer’s permission. We write only to correct the written order, which does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. The written order erroneously lists violations of conditions nine and twelve, when the record shows that the trial court specifically found no support for those charges. Therefore, we remand this case to the trial court to correct the written order. See Dunkin v. State, 706 So.2d 942, 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Narvaez v. State, 674 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Sentmanat need not be present for the entry of the amended revocation order. See Narvaez, 674 So.2d at 869.

Affirmed and remanded with directions.

PATTERSON, C.J., and THREADGILL, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

752 So. 2d 1282, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2918, 2000 WL 283089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sentmanat-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack