JAMES L. MANNING, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
JAMES L. MANNING, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
363 So. 2d 612
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1978)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of this court entered on August 17, 1976 in Manning v. State, 336 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), was reviewed by the Supreme Court of Florida upon petition for certiorari filed by appellant, James L. Manning, whereupon the Supreme Court granted appellant’s petition and remanded the cause for further proceedings consistent with its recent decision in Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (1978).
Now, therefore, on reconsideration of the appeal in light of Clark, our judgment affirming the trial court is vacated, and the judgment of the trial court is hereby reversed on the authority of Clark v. State, supra. The cause is remanded to the circuit court for a new trial.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baker v. State, 674 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ry. This court has consistently held that oral pronouncements must emulate the written violation of probation order. Vann v. State, 441 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); citing Chester v. State, 355 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Baldasare v. State, 363 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). In light of this discrepancy, we remand with instructions to correct this error. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
-
Vann v. State, 441 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…und him guilty of violating all five conditions. The matter will thus be remanded to the trial court so that the written order may be made to conform to the oral pronouncement. Chester v. State, 355 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Baldasare v. State, 363 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). On appeal, the defendant raises two issues: (1) a hearsay argument and (2) an argument based on insufficient evidence regarding ability to pay. We have reviewed the matter and find no error under the hearsay point. We find it u…
-
Revear v. State, 812 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…the hearing on the violation, the trial court found Revear in violation of only condition four. However, the order of revocation of probation incorrectly states that Revear was found in violation of conditions four and eight. See Baldasare v. State, 363 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (remanding order of revocation of probation where there was a discrepancy between trial court’s oral findings and the written revocation order). Therefore, we remand this cause for the purpose of striking that portion of the order…
Authorities Cited
- Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1978)
- Manning v. State, 336 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)