Thomas v. State

350 So. 2d 568
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 11, 1977
Docket76-1079
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 350 So. 2d 568 (Thomas 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
Thomas v. State, 350 So. 2d 568 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

350 So.2d 568 (1977)

Nadine THOMAS, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1079.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

October 11, 1977.

*569 Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Ira N. Loewy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C.J., and PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged by information with tampering with a witness. She pleaded not guilty but later withdrew the plea and entered a plea of guilty. The trial court adjudicated her guilty, withheld sentence, and ordered that appellant be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year.

Soon thereafter an affidavit of violation of probation was filed. Upon hearing on the alleged violations, the trial court revoked the probation and sentenced the appellant to five (5) years in prison.

Appellant argues in this appeal that the trial court erred in revoking the term of probation previously imposed upon appellant because the revocation was based solely upon a plea of guilty entered in municipal court to a charge of disorderly conduct; that the judgment of guilt was not introduced into evidence and the document introduced was insufficient to prove that a valid judgment of guilt was entered, and that the facts of the alleged offense, as adduced at the hearings, were insufficient to prove the appellant did in fact commit the alleged offense.

We have carefully considered appellant's contentions in the light of the record on appeal, briefs and argument of counsel and have concluded that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error. State ex rel. Roberts v. Cochran, 140 So.2d 597 (Fla. 1962); Bernhardt v. State, 288 So.2d 490 (Fla. 1974); Singletary v. State, 290 So.2d 116 (Fla.4th DCA 1974); and Ivey v. State, 308 So.2d 565 (Fla.2nd DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

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

Related

Ellis v. State
453 So. 2d 467 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Stevens v. State
409 So. 2d 1051 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1982)
Donaldson v. State
407 So. 2d 623 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Stevens v. State
397 So. 2d 398 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Dearing v. State
388 So. 2d 296 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
350 So. 2d 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.