EDWARD L. BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Revocation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On this direct criminal appeal, we conclude that the issues raised by appellant merit neither discussion nor reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. However, on remand, we direct the trial court to correct the judgment and sentence in circuit court case number 92-2412 to reflect that they followed a revocation of community control, rather than of probation; and to correct the order of revocation of community control in that case to reflect that revocation was based upon violation of the condition requiring appellant to “live and remain at liberty without violating the law,” in that appellant was convicted of attempted sexual battery. (It is apparent from the record that all parties agreed that such a conviction would be sufficient to sustain the revocation of community control.)
AFFIRMED and REMANDED, with directions.
WOLF, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Price v. Hannahs, 954 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…o defense counsel’s request for the court to hold Dr. Price in contempt. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(b)(1) (providing contempt as remedy for deponent who fails to answer question after being directed to answer by court); see also Pevsner v. Frederick, 656 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (concluding, based on Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380, that discovery sanctions may only be imposed against expert [*100] witnesses when they are found in contempt). We review contempt orders against nonparties by appeal rather than certio…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Swindoll, 54 So. 3d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…ender or elicited the testimony in question. We agree that “[i]n practice it is generally understood that the party designating an expert witness in civil actions becomes responsible for the expert’s conduct as a witness.... ” Pevsner v. Frederick, 656 So. 2d 262, 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (Farmer, J., concurring). An expert’s failure or refusal to comply with court orders “may, in the court’s discretion, result in the loss of the right to call that expert to testify at trial.” Id. at 266. The power to regulat…
-
Shook v. Alter, 715 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…is important because, on a petition for certiorari, the standard of review is that the petitioner must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law, a heavier burden than an appellant must carry on an appeal. Pevsner v. Frederick, 656 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(Farmer, J., specially concurring). We are publishing this order so that the Bar will know that, where a final order is entered against a non-party such as, for example, a lawyer or a witness, the appropriate method for review of…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence