Carroll v. State

578 So. 2d 868, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4404, 1991 WL 68873
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 3, 1991·No. No. 89-03250·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.

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)