Astolfo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Astolfo v. State

598 So. 2d 314, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5430, 1992 WL 106595

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 22, 1992

DocketNo. 90-03462

StatusPublished

This text of 598 So. 2d 314 (Astolfo v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Astolfo v. State, 598 So. 2d 314, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5430, 1992 WL 106595 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mr. Astolfo appeals sentences imposed on revocation of probation. He objects to several conditions of his probation as well as to the trial court’s refusal to grant him certain credit for jail time he has served. We affirm the trial court’s denial of credit for jail time served. As in State v. Tripp, 591 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), the defendant’s prior incarceration [315]*315was imposed on only one of several offenses that were subject to sentencing at the same hearing. The incarceration on violation of probation has been imposed on one of the other offenses. Thus, credit for time served is not available.

We reverse the written order of probation because conditions 6, 11, 16, 21, and 22 were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing. Williams v. State, 542 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). On remand, the written order of probation must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement at sentencing. The defendant also challenges the condition which requires him to submit to random drug screening; however, on remand the trial court may reimpose that condition because it is a proper statutory condition of his probation. Tillman v. State, 592 So.2d 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

HALL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERNED, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Mr. Astolfo appeals sentences imposed on revocation of probation. He objects to several conditions of his probation as well as to the trial court’s refusal to grant him certain credit for jail time he has served. We affirm the trial court’s denial of credit for jail time served. As in State v. Tripp, 591 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), the defendant’s prior incarceration [315]*315was imposed on only one of several offenses that were subject to sentencing at the same hearing. The incarceration on violation of probation has been imposed on one of the other offenses. Thus, credit for time served is not available.

We reverse the written order of probation because conditions 6, 11, 16, 21, and 22 were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing. Williams v. State, 542 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). On remand, the written order of probation must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement at sentencing. The defendant also challenges the condition which requires him to submit to random drug screening; however, on remand the trial court may reimpose that condition because it is a proper statutory condition of his probation. Tillman v. State, 592 So.2d 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

HALL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERNED, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

598 So. 2d 314, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5430, 1992 WL 106595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/astolfo-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack