TOMMY ARD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
This court has twice ordered the parties to supplement the record with missing orders of revocation of probation and the supporting affidavits. The parties have managed to submit one of the missing orders (Cases No. 83-1254, 83-1281 and 83-2693) but have yet to produce the third order (Cases No. 82-1980 and 82-1981) and the underlying affidavits for these two orders. Rather than waste more of this court’s judicial resources in attempting to complete this record, we remand to the trial court to revisit all three orders of revocation of probation. The court announced probation was being revoked solely because of appellant’s early 1985 bad check convictions. The written orders before the court and, we presume, the still missing order refer to other breaches of the conditions of probation.
The trial court indicated these breaches were not important to it in revoking probation.
Thus, the trial court is to insure that its orders of revocation of probation conform to its announced findings. The final order should also reflect that appellant pled not guilty to the charges of violation of probation. The appellants’ other issue on appeal is without merit.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ROE v. City Investing/General Dev. Corp., 587 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1991)…ployer. (Emphasis added.) The court below found the claimant’s right to disability benefits [*1325] under this exception restricted to situations where the remedial treatment was voluntary, relying on Proctor v. Swing Set Day Care Center & Seibels, 498 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (citing Daniel v. Holmes Lumber Co., 490 So. 2d 1252 (Fla.1986)). The reliance on Proctor and Daniel in this case is misplaced, however, because the version of the statute at issue in those cases contained language that could rea…
-
ABC Liquors, Inc. v. Creed, 573 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…e of the treatment and the filing of the claim, the ratio decidendi of Whiteman appears to me to dictate a holding that the claim was barred by the limitation prescribed by 440.-19. The holdings in Proctor v. Swing Set Day Care Center and Seibels, 498 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) and Iuen v. Livewire Elect. Co., 538 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), do not conflict with the holding in Whiteman. Those cases, like the earlier holdings in Daniel v. Holmes Lumber Co., 490 So. 2d 1252 (Fla.1986); Bowman v. Food…1 / 2
-
City Investing/General Dev. Corp. v. ROE, 566 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…een a lapse of more than two years from the date of injury, even when a claimant is to be provided with remedial care in the form of the insertion or attachment of a prosthetic device under section 440.19(l)(b). Proctor v. Swing Set Day Care Center, 498 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), concludes that “[ujnder the language of section 440.-19(2)(a), as most recently construed, the voluntary payment of compensation or remedial treatment revives the two year limitation period, even if an accrued defense existed at…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence