From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rainey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 20, 1988
528 So. 2d 528 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

Opinion

No. 86-3156.

July 20, 1988.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; R. Wallace Pack, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Lauren Hafner Sewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


Rainey seeks to correct error in the trial court's order revoking his probation. We agree that it was improper to find him guilty of violating one of the conditions of probation.

An affidavit for violation of probation alleged Rainey violated conditions five, nine, and eleven of his probation. Rainey thereafter pleaded guilty to violating conditions five and eleven. The trial court's order stated that all allegations contained in the affidavit resulted in a probation violation. It was, therefore, improper to find him guilty of violating condition number nine, and we strike that portion of the revocation order. See Reynolds v. State, 498 So.2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Otherwise, the trial court's revocation order is affirmed.

Affirmed.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.


Summaries of

Rainey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 20, 1988
528 So. 2d 528 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)
Case details for

Rainey v. State

Case Details

Full title:DANNY RAY RAINEY, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jul 20, 1988

Citations

528 So. 2d 528 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

Citing Cases

Cunningham v. State

We therefore strike from the order of revocation any reference to condition number 2. See Rainey v. State,…