Case Name: Thomas JORDAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2005-11-04
Citations: 913 So. 2d 744
Docket Number: No. 5D05-187
Parties: Thomas JORDAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: PLEUS, C.J., SHARP, W„ J., and SEMENTO, L.J. Associate Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 913
Pages: 744–744

Head Matter:
Thomas JORDAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 5D05-187.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Nov. 4, 2005.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Brynn Newton, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Timothy D. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jordan appeals from an order denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), in which he asserts he was entitled to a new sentencing because the judge who sentenced him after a violation of probation hearing and revocation of his probation, was not the same judge who presided over his criminal trial and imposed his original sentence, and there was no showing of necessity, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.700.
We recently issued an opinion in Scott v. State, 909 So.2d 364 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), which addressed these issues and resolved them contrary to Jordan's position. We find this case factually indistinguishable from Scott. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
PLEUS, C.J., SHARP, W" J., and SEMENTO, L.J. Associate Judge, concur.