Dobrowolski v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dobrowolski v. State

663 So. 2d 678, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12585, 1995 WL 700146

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 29, 1995·No. No. 95-0215·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction. We also affirm appellant’s sentence, except we reverse that part of the probation order that required appellant to “submit to urinalysis, breathalyzer or blood tests at any time requested by [her] Officer.” Although the trial court did pronounce in open court the requirement to submit to urinalysis, it did not include pronouncement of breathalyzer or [679]*679blood tests. See Allen v. State, 640 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We remand to the trial court with instructions to conform the written probation order to its oral pronouncement of sentence.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

DELL, FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction. We also affirm appellant’s sentence, except we reverse that part of the probation order that required appellant to “submit to urinalysis, breathalyzer or blood tests at any time requested by [her] Officer.” Although the trial court did pronounce in open court the requirement to submit to urinalysis, it did not include pronouncement of breathalyzer or [679]*679blood tests. See Allen v. State, 640 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We remand to the trial court with instructions to conform the written probation order to its oral pronouncement of sentence.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

DELL, FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Dobrowolski v. State, 663 So. 2d 678, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12585, 1995 WL 700146 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

663 So. 2d 678 (Dobrowolski v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related