SAMUEL YOUNG, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court affirmed the revocation of probation and sentence, but remanded for correction of the written order.
Appellant's probation was revoked based on three grounds, though the written order erroneously included a fourth ground that the trial court explicitl…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bifurcation Of Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a timely appeal from the trial court’s order revoking appellant’s probation and sentencing him to five and one-half years’ incarceration. Appellant’s two appeals, taken from separate sets of convictions and concurrent sentences, have been consolidated for consideration and disposition.
Appellant’s main points are directed to the violation of probation hearing held on May 81, 1988, at which the trial court denied appellant’s request for continuance or bifurcation of the proceedings. Appellant contends he requested the aforementioned relief because he had witnesses under subpoena who failed to appear for the hearing. The subject matter of these witnesses’ testimony would have been limited to paragraph II of the petition, alleging violation of probation by committing the new offense of stealing a Jeep. At the conclusion of the presentation of both sides’ evidence, the trial judge stated that he would assume appellant not guilty of stealing the Jeep and not consider that as a ground for violation of probation. However, he found appellant guilty as to the other three grounds for violations of probation alleged in the petition. The trial judge revoked appellant’s probation and sentenced him accordingly. We therefore affirm the conviction and sentence.
However, we note that the trial court’s written order of revocation of probation, dated August 5, 1988, inadvertently contained paragraph II, the alleged theft of the Jeep, as one of the grounds for having violated probation. This was apparently a clerical error on the part of the court, and the cause is remanded for the sole purpose of having the court enter a corrected order of revocation of probation, eliminating paragraph II. It is so ordered.
GLICKSTEIN, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Ivens Corp. v. Cohen, 560 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…, Cohen has conceded that the final judgment exceeds the allegedly appropriate amount of damages. These circumstances emphasize the need for the trial court to recalculate damages. See Ocean Ridge Yacht Club Associates v. Atlantic Elec. Constr. Co., 546 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). When it does so, the trial court should reconsider the conceded overage in its calculation of the damage award. Bril v. Furman, 548 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Reversed and remanded to the trial court for recalculation of dam…