Estrada v. State
619 So. 2d 1057, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6756, 1993 WL 221416
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 25, 1993·No. No. 92-02576·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
Appellant, Miguel Angel Estrada, challenges certain conditions of his probation and the imposition of certain costs. We affirm.
We write only to explain that the conditions concerning alcohol use and testing do not violate Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla.1993) because they were related to the offense for which appellant was convicted. The record reveals that appellant told police that he committed the offense because he was intoxicated.
We find no error in the other challenged condition and the imposition of costs and, accordingly, affirm.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Estrada v. State, 619 So. 2d 1057, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6756, 1993 WL 221416 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).
619 So. 2d 1057 (Estrada v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Villanueva v. State
118 So. 3d 999 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)