Tompkins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tompkins v. State

473 So. 2d 287, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1860, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14755

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 2, 1985

DocketNo. 84-2076

StatusPublished

This text of 473 So. 2d 287 (Tompkins 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

Tompkins v. State, 473 So. 2d 287, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1860, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14755 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from the judgments and sentences imposed after revocation of his probation in two cases consolidated below. We find no merit in his argument concerning the insufficiency of the affidavits of violation of probation filed in either case. Nor do we find any merit in his argument concerning the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocations. We therefore affirm.

However, because the record before us is inadequate, we are unable to determine whether there is merit to appellant’s argument that he was not given proper credit for time served. Consequently, our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant’s right to raise the issue of credit time in a motion for postconviction relief and establish a sufficient record, if he can.

AFFIRMED.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from the judgments and sentences imposed after revocation of his probation in two cases consolidated below. We find no merit in his argument concerning the insufficiency of the affidavits of violation of probation filed in either case. Nor do we find any merit in his argument concerning the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocations. We therefore affirm.

However, because the record before us is inadequate, we are unable to determine whether there is merit to appellant’s argument that he was not given proper credit for time served. Consequently, our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant’s right to raise the issue of credit time in a motion for postconviction relief and establish a sufficient record, if he can.

AFFIRMED.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 So. 2d 287, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1860, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tompkins-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.