Bartley v. State

675 So. 2d 246, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6531, 1996 WL 332911
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 19, 1996
DocketNo. 95-3150
StatusPublished

This text of 675 So. 2d 246 (Bartley 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
Bartley v. State, 675 So. 2d 246, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6531, 1996 WL 332911 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea of nolo conten-dere, appellant, Floyd Bartley, was sen-fenced to one year in the county jail to be followed by a term of probation. Appellant challenges certain conditions of probation which were contained in the written order of [247]*247probation but were not orally pronounced at trial. We strike the condition requiring appellant to pay for his random drug testing because this condition was not orally pronounced and is not a general condition of probation. Catholic v. State, 632 So.2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). In all other respects, we affirm.

DELL, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Catholic v. State
632 So. 2d 272 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
675 So. 2d 246, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6531, 1996 WL 332911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartley-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.