992 So. 2d 346
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided October 1, 2008
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2008-10-01
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 2015
3 state decisions
Relies on 410 So. 2d 916 - Cuciak v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2008-10-01
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1Because we find that appellant did not apprise the trial court of the potential discovery violation in a timely manner, we affirm. See Cuciak v. State, 410 So.2d 916, 918 (Fla.1982) (“The probationer has the burden of bringing the violation to the court’s attention in a timely manner.”).
¶2Affirmed.