ARSENIO JIMENEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ARSENIO JIMENEZ, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
393 So. 2d 630
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1981)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The order revoking the defendant’s probation under review is affirmed. Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1974); Randolph v. State, 292 So. 2d 374 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 300 So. 2d 900 (Fla.1974). The cause, however, is remanded to the trial court with directions to correct the clerical errors in the order of the revocation so as to reflect, in accord with the trial court’s oral ruling below, that the defendant violated his probation by possessing a firearm herein. See Roberson v. State, 358 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Perry v. State ex rel. Mills, 357 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
Affirmed as modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanlando Springs Animal Hosp., Inc. v. Douglass, 455 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…dson, 411 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The requirement of a dispute does not mean that the parties have to be hostile to each another. The dispute can simply be an uncertainty as to the true location of the line. As stated in Brooks v. Fletcher, 393 So. 2d 630, 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), the elements necessary to prove a boundary by agreement are as follows: (1) an uncertainty or dispute as to the boundary line; (2) an agreement that a certain line will be treated as the true boundary line; (3) the subse…
-
Evans v. Forte, 510 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…ation of the true boundary line; (2) an agreement by the parties that a certain line will be treated as the true boundary line; and (3) the subsequent occupation of both properties according to such line as the trae boundary. See Brooks v. Fletcher, 393 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); see also, Shaw v. Williams, 50 So. 2d 125 (Fla.1950). Moreover, the burden of proving the necessary elements is on the party claiming that a boundary has been established by agreement or acquiescence. Shaw. Here, there is no evi…
-
Est. of Myra Engskow v. Cullen, 428 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…ial evidence of a boundary dispute or uncertainty, an essential element of appellant’s affirmative defenses to ejectment of boundary by agreement or boundary by acquiescence. See King v. Carden, 237 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Brooks v. Fletcher, 393 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); and Seddon v. Edmondson, 411 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment of ejectment. AFFIRMED. HURLEY and DELL, JJ„ and H. MARK PURDY, Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Gideon Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1974)
- Randolph v. State, 292 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- The Fla. State Bd. OF Dentistry v. State of Fla. ex rel. Barbara Greenberg, 300 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 1974)
- Fontainebleau Hotel v. Grao, 300 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 1974)
- The City OF ST. Petersburg Beach v. Marine Attractions, Inc., 357 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- City OF Coral Springs v. Fla. Nat'l Props., Inc., 358 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)