Brockley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brockley v. State

696 So. 2d 424, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7259, 1997 WL 355015

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 27, 1997

DocketNo. 95-4430

StatusPublished

This text of 696 So. 2d 424 (Brockley 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

Brockley v. State, 696 So. 2d 424, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7259, 1997 WL 355015 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Rodney Brockley, appeals his convictions for lewd assault and first degree burglary with assault or battery. We affirm his convictions without comment, but we are compelled to strike one condition of probation.

Condition thirteen requires the defendant to “waive extradition should a violation of supervision occur.” We strike this condition because it is a special condition which was not orally pronounced. See McDaniels v. State, 679 So.2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The defendant asserts that conditions four and twelve must also be stricken for the same reason. We disagree. Conditions four and twelve are verbatim quotes from the form order of probation added to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986. Pursuant to State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589 (Fla.1996), we affirm the imposition of these conditions of probation.

We, therefore, strike condition thirteen. Otherwise, we affirm the convictions and sentences.

THREADGILL, C.J., and PATTERSON and FULMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Rodney Brockley, appeals his convictions for lewd assault and first degree burglary with assault or battery. We affirm his convictions without comment, but we are compelled to strike one condition of probation.

Condition thirteen requires the defendant to “waive extradition should a violation of supervision occur.” We strike this condition because it is a special condition which was not orally pronounced. See McDaniels v. State, 679 So.2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The defendant asserts that conditions four and twelve must also be stricken for the same reason. We disagree. Conditions four and twelve are verbatim quotes from the form order of probation added to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986. Pursuant to State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589 (Fla.1996), we affirm the imposition of these conditions of probation.

We, therefore, strike condition thirteen. Otherwise, we affirm the convictions and sentences.

THREADGILL, C.J., and PATTERSON and FULMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

696 So. 2d 424, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7259, 1997 WL 355015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brockley-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack