Ealy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ealy v. State

681 So. 2d 914, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11090, 1996 WL 604506

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 23, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2874

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 681 So. 2d 914 (Ealy 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

Ealy v. State, 681 So. 2d 914, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11090, 1996 WL 604506 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to one year in jail followed by one year of drug offender probation. The written order of probation included three special probation conditions that were not orally pronounced at sentencing. We reverse the imposition of these three conditions not orally pronounced and remand.

Probation conditions that are not set out in sections 948.03-.034, Florida Statutes (1995), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(e), are special conditions that must be pronounced during sentencing in open court. State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589, 591-93 (Fla.1996). If such conditions are not orally pronounced at sentencing, the trial court must strike the unannounced conditions. Justice v. State, 674 So.2d 123, 125 (Fla.1996).

In the instant case, the written probation order included conditions requiring Appellant to observe a curfew, report daily to his probation officer if not employed, and enroll in a Drug Awareness Course. These three conditions were not orally pronounced at sentencing and are not among the general conditions set out in sections 948.03- 034, Florida Statutes (1995), or Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(e). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s probation order as it pertains to the three special written conditions not orally pronounced at sentencing and remand for the trial court to strike said conditions.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, C.J., and POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to one year in jail followed by one year of drug offender probation. The written order of probation included three special probation conditions that were not orally pronounced at sentencing. We reverse the imposition of these three conditions not orally pronounced and remand.

Probation conditions that are not set out in sections 948.03-.034, Florida Statutes (1995), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(e), are special conditions that must be pronounced during sentencing in open court. State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589, 591-93 (Fla.1996). If such conditions are not orally pronounced at sentencing, the trial court must strike the unannounced conditions. Justice v. State, 674 So.2d 123, 125 (Fla.1996).

In the instant case, the written probation order included conditions requiring Appellant to observe a curfew, report daily to his probation officer if not employed, and enroll in a Drug Awareness Course. These three conditions were not orally pronounced at sentencing and are not among the general conditions set out in sections 948.03- 034, Florida Statutes (1995), or Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(e). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s probation order as it pertains to the three special written conditions not orally pronounced at sentencing and remand for the trial court to strike said conditions.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, C.J., and POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

681 So. 2d 914, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11090, 1996 WL 604506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ealy-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack