Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

370 So. 2d 79

Rusu v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1979-04-25

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1981

1 state decisions

Relies on Gebhardt v. Smith

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1979-04-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Appellant’s probation supervisor filed an affidavit charging appellant with violating conditions (e) and (h) of his probation. At the hearing on the affidavit, the trial court found that appellant had violated condition (h) and revoked probation. We affirm that revocation, but we remand the case for correction of the written revocation order.

¶2Owing to an apparent clerical error, the order recites that appellant violated not only condition (h) but also condition (e). Since at the hearing the court only found that appellant had violated condition (h), it should now remove any reference to condition (e) from its order. Brewster v. State, 352 So.2d 1267 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).

GRIMES, C. J., and HOBSON and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
/370/so2d/79 · .json · Public domain