From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Revear v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 3, 2002
812 So. 2d 575 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Opinion

No. 2D00-2313.

April 3, 2002.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hills-borough County; Jack Espinosa, Jr., Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Anthony C. Musto, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Dale E. Tarpley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


Walter Revear, III, appeals an order of revocation of probation. We affirm the trial court's finding that Revear was in violation of his probation. However, we remand the case because the record reflects a discrepancy between the trial court's oral findings and the written order of revocation. At 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 of revocation of probation stating that Revear was found in violation of condition eight. The order is otherwise affirmed.

Revear need not be present for the correction.

SALCINES, and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Revear v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 3, 2002
812 So. 2d 575 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
Case details for

Revear v. State

Case Details

Full title:WALTER REVEAR, III, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Apr 3, 2002

Citations

812 So. 2d 575 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)