JOE NATHAN BREWSTER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the revocation of probation but remanded for corrections to the order and sentence.
Appellant was charged with violating probation conditions. The trial court found a violation of condition (a) and revoked probation. The order and sen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s probation supervisor filed an affidavit charging appellant with violating conditions (a) and (h) of his probation. At the hearing on the affidavit, the trial court found that appellant had violated condition (a) of his probation and revoked the probation. We affirm that revocation, but we agree with appellant that there are imperfections in the order revoking probation and in the subsequent sentence.
In the first place, owing to an apparent clerical error, the order revoking probation recites that appellant violated not only condition (a) but also condition (h). Since at the hearing the court only found that appellant had violated condition (a), it should now remove any reference to condition (h) from its order. The present sentence fails to specify the amount of credit time as Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975) requires. Brooks v. State, 349 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Moreover, the phrase “at hard labor” in the sentence is improper. Brooks v. State, supra.
We remand the case for the court to make the corrections which this opinion mandates. Appellant need not be present at that time.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and GRIMES and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clemons v. State, 388 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…hat appellant violated not only conditions 1 and 3 but also conditions 2 and 9, the court must correct the order by removing any reference to violations of conditions 2 and 9. Brouilett v. State, 373 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Brewster v. State, 352 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The only evidence introduced covering appellant’s alleged violation of condition 3 (termination of employment without permission of supervisor) was the hearsay testimony of the probation supervisor about what appellant’s employ…
-
Brouillett v. State, 373 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…s that appellant violated not only, conditions 1 and 2 but also condition 7. Since at the hearing the court did not find that appellant had violated condition 7, it should now remove any reference to that condition from its order. Brewster v. State, 352 So. 2d 1267 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). HOBSON, Acting C. J., OTT, J., and STARNES, HUGH E., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Rusu v. State, 370 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…ecites that appellant violated not only condition (h) but also condition (e). Since at the hearing the court only found that appellant had violated condition (h), it should now remove any reference to condition (e) from its order. Brewster v. State, 352 So. 2d 1267 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). GRIMES, C. J., and HOBSON and SCHEB, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brooks v. State, 349 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)