SSM v. State
This text of 875 So. 2d 763 (SSM 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.
Opinion
S.S.M., a juvenile, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Marti Rothenberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Consuelo Maingot, Assistant Attorney General, and Adrienne Sampson, Certified Legal Intern, for appellee.
Before COPE, GREEN, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
As the State properly concedes, a written probation order must conform with the trial court's oral pronouncements at sentencing. We thus reverse and remand for the limited purpose of correcting the written order of probation to reflect the trial court's oral pronouncements, which in this case means that the probation order should reflect that the curfew of 8:00 p.m. does not apply if the juvenile is working past that hour.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
875 So. 2d 763, 2004 WL 1336512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ssm-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.