Dycus v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dycus v. State

629 So. 2d 275, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12338, 1993 WL 523854

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 17, 1993·No. No. 93-00509·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

THREADGILL, Judge.

The trial court correctly denied the appellant’s motion to suppress evidence; therefore, we affirm the appellant’s conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine. However, we strike special conditions of probation numbers (4) and (7) because they were not orally announced at sentencing and the appellant had no opportunity to object to their [276] imposition. See Gregory v. State, 616 So.2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

HALL, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.

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

THREADGILL, Judge.

The trial court correctly denied the appellant’s motion to suppress evidence; therefore, we affirm the appellant’s conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine. However, we strike special conditions of probation numbers (4) and (7) because they were not orally announced at sentencing and the appellant had no opportunity to object to their [276] imposition. See Gregory v. State, 616 So.2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

HALL, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.

Dycus v. State, 629 So. 2d 275, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12338, 1993 WL 523854 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

629 So. 2d 275 (Dycus v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related