Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

405 So. 2d 796

Docket No. 81-513.

Dunlap v. State

Charles DUNLAP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 13, 1981.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1981-11-13

Relies on 350 So. 2d 559 - Sing Eng v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1981-11-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently September 2006

13 state decisions

70198119902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Jerry Hill, Public Defender, Bartow, and Allyn Giambalvo, Asst. Public Defender, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Evelyn D. Golden, Daytona Beach, and Deborah A. Osmond, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Charles Dunlap appeals the order revoking his probation and requests a remand for clarification. The trial court considered the following alleged probation violations: (3) appellant would not change his residence, employment or leave the county without receiving his probation officer's consent; (4) appellant would not possess, carry or own a weapon or firearm without his probation officer's consent; (7) appellant would comply with the instructions of his probation officer.

¶5The trial judge made an oral pronouncement that appellant changed his address without notifying his probation officer and further violated his probation by committing armed robbery. The written order of probation revocation did not recite which conditions of probation were violated and thus, it did not conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement. We find this to be erroneous since the revocation order should have stated the specific conditions which were violated. Sing Eng v. State,350 So.2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).

¶6Accordingly, we remand for correction of the written order but otherwise affirm the revocation of probation. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

¶7OTT, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

/405/so2d/796 · .json · Public domain