ELMER LEE BARRON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1979-04-11
No. 78-1635
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.
369 So. 2d 669 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1979) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The revocation of probation is affirmed, but the order and sentence must be corrected due to factual inaccuracies and insufficient credit time.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant's probation was revoked based on a violation of condition (b), though the order incorrectly stated violations of conditions (a) and (h) occu…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The revocation of appellant’s probation is affirmed. However, we remand for correction of the order of revocation and the sentence.

Although the affidavit and warrant filed against appellant charged him with violating conditions (a), (b), and (h) of his probation, the trial court limited the testimony at the revocation hearing to the charge of violating condition (b). The trial judge made an oral finding that appellant had violated condition (b), but the written order of revocation recites a finding that he violated all three conditions. Since appellant did not admit the charged violations and there was no evidence that he committed the other two violations, the findings that appellant violated conditions (a) and (h) must be stricken from the order of revocation.

In addition, appellant was not awarded all of the credit time to which he was entitled. Although he was given some credit, he was not credited for the time he spent in the Hillsborough County Diagnostic and Treatment Center in 1972 as a condition of his probation. Appellant is entitled to such credit, Johnson v. State, 334 So. 2d 334 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); his sentence must be corrected. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Turner v. State, 395 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
    …ty jail before sentence.’ ” The other error asserted by Appellant is also without merit, and the order is, therefore, AFFIRMED. LARRY G. SMITH, and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Singleton v. State, 373 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979); Barron v. State, 369 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979); Graham v. State, 366 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979); Johnson v. State, 334 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979). . On August 27, 1980, the Supreme Court entered an order accepting jurisdiction of this case and dispensing with oral ar…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw