ROY L. SIMMONS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ROY L. SIMMONS, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
834 So. 2d 373
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2003)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s ruling revoking appellant’s probation and the 67.2-month sentence, but remand for entry of a written revocation order. See Jones v. State, 638 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (remanding for entry of a written order of revocation and directing that the defendant need not be present).
AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED.
ERVIN, BARFIELD and WOLF, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bennett v. Walton Cnty., 174 So. 3d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…v. Dep’t of Ins. & Treasurer, 551 So. 2d 1223, 1225-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“Where no fundamental rights are involved, the test is essentially the same for both equal protection and substantive due process analysis.”); see also Joseph v. Henderson, 834 So. 2d 373, 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“When no fundamental right is at stake, the standard for evaluating a substantive due process challenge is the same as' the rational basis test used for evaluating equal protection challenges.”); see generally United Yacht B…
-
B.S. v. State, 862 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…, the statute must not be discriminatory, arbitrary, or oppressive.” Lite v. State, 617 So. 2d 1058, 1059-60 (Fla.1993) (internal citations omitted); see also Ilkanic v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 705 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla.1998); Joseph v. Henderson, 834 So. 2d 373, 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). As in an equal protection, inquiry, we must first determine the level of scrutiny to apply in this substantive due process challenge. We have some concern that D.L.S.’s fundamental right to parent is affected by this statute…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 638 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)