Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

371 So. 2d 202

Langston v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1979-05-18

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1984

3 state decisions

Relies on 334 So. 2d 568 - Cox v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1979-05-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The revocation of appellant’s probation is affirmed, but we remand for correction of the order of revocation and the judgment and sentence.

¶2The order assessing costs against appellant must be set aside. Since the trial court had adjudged appellant to be insolvent, it was not authorized to assess costs against him. § 939.15, Fla.Stat. (1977); Cox v. State, 334 So.2d 568 (Fla.1976).

¶3In addition, the written order of revocation recites a finding that appellant violated conditions (a), (h), (i), and (k), although the trial court’s oral finding at the revocation hearing reflects only that condition (i) was violated. The finding of violations of conditions (a), (h), and (k) should be deleted from the order of revocation to conform to the oral finding made at the hearing.

OTT, A. C. J., and RYDER and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.
/371/so2d/202 · .json · Public domain