Simon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Simon v. State

3 So. 3d 453, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1791, 2009 WL 605370

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 11, 2009

Docket3D08-1108

StatusPublished

This text of 3 So. 3d 453 (Simon 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

Simon v. State, 3 So. 3d 453, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1791, 2009 WL 605370 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Confession of Error

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order revoking the probation of defendant-appellant Martin Simon. The State concedes that at the hearing below, the defendant admitted to a violation of conditions one and thirteen, and the oral pronouncement in this case found a violation of conditions one and thirteen only. The State acknowledges that the revocation order erroneously includes a violation of two other conditions, conditions five and ten, as a basis for revoking probation. Based on the State’s concession, we reverse the revocation order in part and remand with directions to delete the reference to conditions five and ten. See Williams v. State, 764 So.2d 757, 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“A written order of revocation must conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncement.”). The defendant need not be present.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for correction of order.

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

Confession of Error

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order revoking the probation of defendant-appellant Martin Simon. The State concedes that at the hearing below, the defendant admitted to a violation of conditions one and thirteen, and the oral pronouncement in this case found a violation of conditions one and thirteen only. The State acknowledges that the revocation order erroneously includes a violation of two other conditions, conditions five and ten, as a basis for revoking probation. Based on the State’s concession, we reverse the revocation order in part and remand with directions to delete the reference to conditions five and ten. See Williams v. State, 764 So.2d 757, 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“A written order of revocation must conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncement.”). The defendant need not be present.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for correction of order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 So. 3d 453, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1791, 2009 WL 605370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simon-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack