Case Name: Alph L. FUTCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-09-30
Citations: 605 So. 2d 954
Docket Number: No. 92-0770
Parties: Alph L. FUTCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 605
Pages: 954–955

Head Matter:
Alph L. FUTCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 92-0770.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sept. 30, 1992.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Melvina Flaherty, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of his conviction and sentence for criminal mischief and the trial court's order revoking his probation, contending that the court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his probation based on the allegations contained in an amended affidavit of violation of probation that was filed after his probation had terminated.
The state concedes that the amended affidavit of violation of probation was filed after appellant's probation had expired, but correctly contends that the offense which was the basis for the revocation (trespass) was alleged not only in the amended affidavit of violation of probation, but also in a prior affidavit of violation of probation that was filed before appellant's probation ended. Accordingly, the trial court did not lack jurisdiction to revoke appellant's probation. See Clark v. State, 402 So.2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA1981). See also Jess v. State, 384 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA1980).
We therefore affirm the judgment, sentence and order revoking probation. However, the written order revoking probation should be corrected to reflect that revocation was based on the January 13, 1992, affidavit of violation of probation, and on the offense of trespass, as the transcript of the revocation hearing indicates that the trial court's sole reason for revoking probation was appellant's commission of the trespass. We remand for that purpose.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.