Underwood v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Underwood v. State

98 So. 3d 745, 2012 WL 4800185, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17425

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 10, 2012

DocketNo. 2D10-3785

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 98 So. 3d 745 (Underwood 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

Underwood v. State, 98 So. 3d 745, 2012 WL 4800185, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17425 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

LaROSE, Judge.

Don K. Underwood appeals the revocation of his probation and resulting sentence. We find no merit to two of the issues he raises on appeal. Thus, we affirm the revocation of his probation and sentences without further comment.

However, in a third issue, Mr. Underwood argues, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred by failing to enter a written revocation of probation order that specifies the specific conditions of supervision that Mr. Underwood violated. See Wynperle v. State, 21 So.3d 172, 172-73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Reyes v. State, 9 So.3d 649, 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Cato v. State, 845 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We are compelled to remand with directions to the trial court to enter a formal probation revocation order that complies with the law.

Affirmed and remanded with directions.

ALTENBERND and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.

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

LaROSE, Judge.

Don K. Underwood appeals the revocation of his probation and resulting sentence. We find no merit to two of the issues he raises on appeal. Thus, we affirm the revocation of his probation and sentences without further comment.

However, in a third issue, Mr. Underwood argues, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred by failing to enter a written revocation of probation order that specifies the specific conditions of supervision that Mr. Underwood violated. See Wynperle v. State, 21 So.3d 172, 172-73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Reyes v. State, 9 So.3d 649, 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Cato v. State, 845 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We are compelled to remand with directions to the trial court to enter a formal probation revocation order that complies with the law.

Affirmed and remanded with directions.

ALTENBERND and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 So. 3d 745, 2012 WL 4800185, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/underwood-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack