SUSAN MARY GEBHARDT, APPELLANT,

v.

ROCCO SMITH AND CARL SHEPARD, APPELLEES

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.…