Simonetta v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Simonetta v. State

685 So. 2d 62, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13248, 1996 WL 727135

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 19, 1996

DocketNo. 96-284

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 685 So. 2d 62 (Simonetta 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

Simonetta v. State, 685 So. 2d 62, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13248, 1996 WL 727135 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, the public defender has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although afforded an opportunity to do so, appellant has elected not to file a brief in proper person. Having reviewed the entire record, we agree that no reversible error occurred. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of appellant’s probation, and the sentence imposed. However, we note that it does not appear that a written order was entered revoking appellant’s probation. On remand, the trial court is directed to enter a written order, consistent with its oral pronouncement, revoking appellant’s probation, and specifying the condition of probation found to have been violated. Appellant need not be present.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, the public defender has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although afforded an opportunity to do so, appellant has elected not to file a brief in proper person. Having reviewed the entire record, we agree that no reversible error occurred. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of appellant’s probation, and the sentence imposed. However, we note that it does not appear that a written order was entered revoking appellant’s probation. On remand, the trial court is directed to enter a written order, consistent with its oral pronouncement, revoking appellant’s probation, and specifying the condition of probation found to have been violated. Appellant need not be present.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

685 So. 2d 62, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13248, 1996 WL 727135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simonetta-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack