THEODTIS PRIMOUS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
THEODTIS PRIMOUS, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
561 So. 2d 33
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1990)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. However, the court notes a possible discrepancy between the written order and-the transcript with respect to adjudication of guilt. This opinion is without prejudice to the right of the appellant to seek modification or clarification of this discrepancy.
LETTS, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sperdute v. Household Realty Corp., 585 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…ty is not allowed to testify. See Malzahn v. Malzahn, 541 So. 2d 1359, 1360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Furthermore, it is reversible error for a trial court to deny a party an evidentiary hearing to which he is entitled. Southeast Mortgage Co. v. Andrews, 561 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Thus, by denying the Sperdutes’ request to testify at the evidentiary hearing on their motion to vacate the default final judgment, the trial court effectively denied them an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the trial cou…
-
Burns v. Bankamerica Nat'l Tr. Co., 719 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…edly were served with process. See Myrick v. Walters, 666 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (trial court erred in precluding plaintiff from presenting evidence refuting defendant’s claim of defective service of process); Southeast Mortg. Co. v. Andrews, 561 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (trial court erred in dismissing Rule 1.540(b) motion to set aside foreclosure sale without holding evidentiary hearing). However, even if the Burnses had presented such evidence and the judgment against them was void for lack of…