Carroll v. State
578 So. 2d 868, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4404, 1991 WL 68873
Opinion
In this case, appellant challenges several special conditions of probation. Condition 11 requires that appellant not visit bars, restaurants or any places serving alcoholic beverages without permission from his probation officer. Condition 21 requires that he not be within three blocks of known high drug areas as determined by his probation officer. We strike these conditions on the authority of Edmunds v. State, 559 So.2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) and Huff v. State, 554 So.2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). We otherwise affirm.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Carroll v. State, 578 So. 2d 868, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4404, 1991 WL 68873 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).
578 So. 2d 868 (Carroll v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Strong v. State
599 So. 2d 264 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)