Dunbar v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dunbar v. State

633 So. 2d 1136, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 2493, 1994 WL 84128

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 16, 1994

DocketNo. 92-02167

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 633 So. 2d 1136 (Dunbar 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

Dunbar v. State, 633 So. 2d 1136, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 2493, 1994 WL 84128 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Yancy Lamar Dunbar, challenges the judgment and sentence imposed upon him after he was adjudicated guilty of third degree murder. We affirm the conviction and sentence except for certain probation conditions which we strike.

We find no reversible error in the issues appellant raises concerning the conviction of third degree murder, and accordingly, we affirm.

The appellant raises multiple sentencing errors but we find error only in the imposition of two of the conditions of appellant’s probation. Probation condition (6) which forbids appellant from using intoxicants to excess and visiting places where these are unlawfully used or dispensed was improperly imposed because it was not announced in open court. Tillman v. State, 592 So.2d. 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Likewise, probation condition (4) which forbids appellant from possessing weapons and firearms without first obtaining permission from his probation officer was improperly imposed for the same reason. See Tillman. We strike probation conditions (4) and (6).

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Yancy Lamar Dunbar, challenges the judgment and sentence imposed upon him after he was adjudicated guilty of third degree murder. We affirm the conviction and sentence except for certain probation conditions which we strike.

We find no reversible error in the issues appellant raises concerning the conviction of third degree murder, and accordingly, we affirm.

The appellant raises multiple sentencing errors but we find error only in the imposition of two of the conditions of appellant’s probation. Probation condition (6) which forbids appellant from using intoxicants to excess and visiting places where these are unlawfully used or dispensed was improperly imposed because it was not announced in open court. Tillman v. State, 592 So.2d. 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Likewise, probation condition (4) which forbids appellant from possessing weapons and firearms without first obtaining permission from his probation officer was improperly imposed for the same reason. See Tillman. We strike probation conditions (4) and (6).

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 So. 2d 1136, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 2493, 1994 WL 84128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunbar-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack