Trevil v. State
992 So. 2d 346, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 15112, 2008 WL 4414214
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 1, 2008·No. No. 3D07-1405·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
Because we find that appellant did not apprise the trial court of the potential discovery violation in a timely manner, we affirm. See Cuciak v. State, 410 So.2d 916, 918 (Fla.1982) (“The probationer has the burden of bringing the violation to the court’s attention in a timely manner.”).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Trevil v. State, 992 So. 2d 346, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 15112, 2008 WL 4414214 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).
992 So. 2d 346 (Trevil v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Miller v. Miller
992 So. 2d 346 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)