Farrior v. State
This text of 707 So. 2d 777 (Farrior 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.
Opinion
Reggie Farrior appeals from his judgment and sentence for handling and fondling a child under sixteen years of age. We affirm the judgment and sentence, but strike that portion of probation condition (12) requiring Farrior to pay for drug testing because it was not pronounced orally at sentencing. See Tremaine v. State, 698 So.2d 1385 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We do not strike probation condition (4) because it did not require oral pronouncement. See Houston v. State, 701 So.2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
707 So. 2d 777, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 67, 1998 WL 97481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrior-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.