Boyd v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Boyd v. State

749 So. 2d 536, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 22, 2000 WL 3931

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 5, 2000

DocketNo. 98-03316

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 749 So. 2d 536 (Boyd 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

Boyd v. State, 749 So. 2d 536, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 22, 2000 WL 3931 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PATTERSON, Chief Judge.

Terrance Boyd appeals from certain probation conditions imposed upon him following the entry of his guilty plea. He correctly argues that the trial court erred in imposing the portions of condition 18 which prohibit the use or possession of alcohol, or associating with persons who consume alcohol, or frequenting places where alcohol is the main source of business. Those prohibitions are unrelated to the offense of solicitation or delivery of cocaine. See Gerstenberger v. State, 667 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Richardson v. State, 620 So.2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Therefore, we strike the alcohol portions of the condition.

Condition 20 requires Boyd to submit to and pay for an evaluation to deter[537]*537mine whether he has a treatable problem with alcohol or illegal drugs. He is to submit to, pay for, and successfully complete any recommended treatment program. Special condition 20 is proper because the trial court orally pronounced it at sentencing. See Boyd v. State, 688 So.2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Affirmed in part; condition partially stricken.

CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

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

PATTERSON, Chief Judge.

Terrance Boyd appeals from certain probation conditions imposed upon him following the entry of his guilty plea. He correctly argues that the trial court erred in imposing the portions of condition 18 which prohibit the use or possession of alcohol, or associating with persons who consume alcohol, or frequenting places where alcohol is the main source of business. Those prohibitions are unrelated to the offense of solicitation or delivery of cocaine. See Gerstenberger v. State, 667 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Richardson v. State, 620 So.2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Therefore, we strike the alcohol portions of the condition.

Condition 20 requires Boyd to submit to and pay for an evaluation to deter[537]*537mine whether he has a treatable problem with alcohol or illegal drugs. He is to submit to, pay for, and successfully complete any recommended treatment program. Special condition 20 is proper because the trial court orally pronounced it at sentencing. See Boyd v. State, 688 So.2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Affirmed in part; condition partially stricken.

CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

749 So. 2d 536, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 22, 2000 WL 3931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack