Fisher v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fisher v. State

609 So. 2d 168, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12403, 1992 WL 362133

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 11, 1992

DocketNo. 91-03837

StatusPublished

This text of 609 So. 2d 168 (Fisher 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

Fisher v. State, 609 So. 2d 168, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12403, 1992 WL 362133 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Judge.

Robert E. Fisher appeals two conditions of probation and a conviction for RICO conspiracy. A review of the record reveals merit in only one of the arguments raised. Fisher correctly contends condition sixteen of his order of probation is illegal.

Condition sixteen provides: “(16) You cannot seek employment in any aspect of the automotive sales or service industry without the prior approval of your probation officer after he/she is satisfied that such employment will not create the potential for the kind of harm that brings you before the court today.” This condition improperly delegates judicial responsibility to the probation officer. See Edmunds v. State, 559 So.2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), and Denson v. State, 493 So.2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We affirm the conviction but remand to the trial court to strike condition sixteen or to modify this condition in conformance with this opinion.

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

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

BLUE, Judge.

Robert E. Fisher appeals two conditions of probation and a conviction for RICO conspiracy. A review of the record reveals merit in only one of the arguments raised. Fisher correctly contends condition sixteen of his order of probation is illegal.

Condition sixteen provides: “(16) You cannot seek employment in any aspect of the automotive sales or service industry without the prior approval of your probation officer after he/she is satisfied that such employment will not create the potential for the kind of harm that brings you before the court today.” This condition improperly delegates judicial responsibility to the probation officer. See Edmunds v. State, 559 So.2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), and Denson v. State, 493 So.2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We affirm the conviction but remand to the trial court to strike condition sixteen or to modify this condition in conformance with this opinion.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

609 So. 2d 168, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12403, 1992 WL 362133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisher-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack