Tackett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tackett v. State

413 So. 2d 117, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19838

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 23, 1982

DocketNo. 80-1513

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 413 So. 2d 117 (Tackett 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

Tackett v. State, 413 So. 2d 117, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19838 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks a reversal of the revocation of his probation. The written order of revocation did not conform to the oral pronouncement made by the trial judge at the revocation hearing.

Condition (4) of the probation specified that appellant would not possess a weapon or firearm without prior consent of his probation officer. In addition, appellant was prohibited from violating any law under condition (5). At the revocation hearing, the state proved that a police officer had legally stopped appellant driving his car, when the officer spotted a rifle in plain view on the car floorboard. Appellant’s probation officer had not given prior permission to possess the weapon. Thus, we believe the trial court properly found a violation of condition (4).

At the hearing, the trial court judge made the following oral pronouncement: “I will find him (appellant) guilty of violation of condition 4.” So that the written order of revocation will conform to the oral pronouncement, we strike from the revocation order the finding that appellant also violated condition (5). The order, judgment and sentence are affirmed in all other respects. Pedroso v. State, 380 So.2d 1124 (Fla.2d DCA 1980).

HOBSON, A. C. J., and GRIMES and RYDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks a reversal of the revocation of his probation. The written order of revocation did not conform to the oral pronouncement made by the trial judge at the revocation hearing.

Condition (4) of the probation specified that appellant would not possess a weapon or firearm without prior consent of his probation officer. In addition, appellant was prohibited from violating any law under condition (5). At the revocation hearing, the state proved that a police officer had legally stopped appellant driving his car, when the officer spotted a rifle in plain view on the car floorboard. Appellant’s probation officer had not given prior permission to possess the weapon. Thus, we believe the trial court properly found a violation of condition (4).

At the hearing, the trial court judge made the following oral pronouncement: “I will find him (appellant) guilty of violation of condition 4.” So that the written order of revocation will conform to the oral pronouncement, we strike from the revocation order the finding that appellant also violated condition (5). The order, judgment and sentence are affirmed in all other respects. Pedroso v. State, 380 So.2d 1124 (Fla.2d DCA 1980).

HOBSON, A. C. J., and GRIMES and RYDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

413 So. 2d 117, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tackett-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack