JOSEPH ARNAU, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
The lower court’s revocation of appellant’s probation based upon his two violations of condition (5) was supported by the evidence. As the state concedes on appeal, however, the court erred by finding a violation of condition (10), because the trial court had not established a schedule of monthly payments. See Hutchinson v. State, 801 So.2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
We need not remand for reconsideration because it is clear from the record that the trial court would have revoked appellant’s probation and imposed the same sentence based on his commission of two new offenses. See Ware v. State, 54 So.3d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
We affirm the revocation based upon the violations of condition (5) and remand to the trial court to strike that portion of the revocation order finding that appellant violated condition (10).
AFFIRMED and REMANDED for correction of the revocation order.
WOLF, PADOVANO, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Evins v. State, 201 So. 3d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…ce that it had imposed because it is clear from the record that the court would have revoked Appellant’s probation and imposed the same sentence based solely upon Appellant’s violation of conditions (3) and (13) of his probation. See Arnau v. State, 80 So. 3d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Ware v. State, 54 So. 3d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of probation based upon the violations of conditions (3) and (13) and remand for the trial court to strike that portion of the revocation…
Authorities Cited
- Octavius D. Ware v. State, 54 So. 3d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Hutchinson v. State, 801 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)