Wilson v. State, 86-2323
| Decision Date | 12 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2323,86-2323 |
| Citation | 506 So.2d 1170,12 Fla. L. Weekly 1235 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1235 Arthur Lee WILSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Harvey J. Sepler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Michael J. Neimand, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HENDRY and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
The appellant's probation was revoked on the basis of three substantial violations: failure to file the required monthly reports, commission of a grand theft and dealing in the stolen property which was the subject of the theft. There is no challenge to the first two grounds. We agree that the stolen property charge was incorrectly considered because it was not included in the affidavit of violation, see Robinson v. State, 442 So.2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Pitchford v. State, 339 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), and therefore order it stricken from the order under review. We do not, however, remand the cause for reconsideration either of the revocation or the sentence because we are convinced that neither would be affected by the deletion of this single violation. See Scherer v. State, 366 So.2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); compare Aaron v. State, 400 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), pet. for review denied, 408 So.2d 1095 (Fla.1981).
Affirmed as modified.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anthony v. Schmitt
... ... See Del Duca v. State, 422 So.2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Del Duca v. State, 459 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). This ... ...
-
Lawson v. State
...necessary where the appellate court is convinced that neither would be affected by the deletion of single violation); Wilson v. State, 506 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (same); see also Jennings v. State, 665 So.2d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Accordingly, affirmance of the order of revocation ......
-
Person v. State
...from the accusations of the affidavit of violation of probation; see Garcia v. State, 73 So.3d 823 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Wilson v. State, 506 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), and (b) there was insufficient evidence as to whether he had in fact failed to be “gainfully employed.” See Galego v. S......
-
McPherson v. State, 87-1830
...would not be affected by the deletions of the violations alleged in counts V, VII, VIII, and X of the affidavit. Cf. Wilson v. State, 506 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (no remand for reconsideration of revocation or sentence where court convinced that neither would be affected by deletion o......