Farrior v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Farrior v. State

707 So. 2d 777, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 67, 1998 WL 97481

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 9, 1998·No. No. 96-03430·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.

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).

PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.

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).

PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Farrior v. State, 707 So. 2d 777, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 67, 1998 WL 97481 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

707 So. 2d 777 (Farrior v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related