From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dunkin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Mar 4, 1998
706 So. 2d 942 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Opinion

No. 95-04505.

Filed March 4, 1998.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Claudia R. Isom, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

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


Thomas Dunkin has challenged the trial court's revocation of his probation on several grounds. We have reviewed the tortured procedural history of these revocation proceedings and have concluded that the trial court properly revoked Dunkin's probation for violation of conditions 1, 2 and 3. The written order, however, does not conform to the oral pronouncement. We remand this case for correction of the written order. See Narvaez v. State, 674 So.2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Mr. Dunkin need not be present. See Boggs v. State, 557 So.2d 203 (Fla.2d DCA 1990).

PARKER, C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.


Summaries of

Dunkin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Mar 4, 1998
706 So. 2d 942 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Case details for

Dunkin v. State

Case Details

Full title:Thomas DUNKIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Mar 4, 1998

Citations

706 So. 2d 942 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Citing Cases

Stephens v. State

Because the written order does not conform to the court's oral pronouncement, we remand and direct that the…

Stephens v. State

Thus, although defendant need not be present, remand is appropriate for correction of this judgment. See…