GARY ARNOLD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
KELLY, Judge.
Gary Arnold appeals from the order revoking his probation. The State correctly concedes that the January 31, 2002, order revoking Arnold’s probation should be vacated.1 Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to vacate the January 31, 2002, order finding Arnold guilty of violation of probation and revoking his probation in case numbers 96-2661 and 96-2662.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
CASANUEVA, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur. . After this appeal was filed, the trial court vacated the sentence it had imposed for the violation of probation; however, it neglected to vacate the order of revocation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mills v. Mills, 62 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…id not include the value of the former husband’s business income or the value of in kind payments made on his behalf when it determined the former husband’s ability to pay, we must reverse the award of alimony. See Dep’t of Revenue v. Hinnerschietz, 850 So. 2d 625, 626-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So. 2d 834, 836 (Fla. 2d DCA [*676] 2002); Jones v. Jones, 679 So. 2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Smith v. Smith, 575 So. 2d 228, 228-29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). For the purposes of determining busine…
-
State v. Channon C. Price and John E. Price, 182 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…ee Colston v. Green, 742 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (Father’s one-time signing bonus from professional football team was required to be included in "gross income” under, section 61.30(2)(a), Fla. Stat.). . See Dep't of Revenue v. Hinnerschietz, 850 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (Father’s benefits from business which contributed to his living expenses required to be included as "gross income” under section 61.30(2)(a), Fla. Stat.). . While we can affirm a decision even if right for the wrong reason, we c…
-
G.S.P. v. K.B., 30 So. 3d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…PTER S CORPORATION “In determining the parties’ income levels under the child support guidelines, the court may consider ‘[rjeimbursed expenses or in kind payments to the extent that they reduce living expenses.’” Dep’t of Revenue v. Hinnerschietz, 850 So. 2d 625, 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (alteration in original) (quoting § 61.30(2)(a)(13), Fla. Stat. (2002))2; see also Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So. 2d 834, 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (approving the trial court’s decision to include as income benefits such as a company…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence