Fraysur v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fraysur v. State

82 So. 3d 836, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4801, 2011 WL 1261198

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 6, 2011

DocketNo. 4D10-2705

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 So. 3d 836 (Fraysur 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

Fraysur v. State, 82 So. 3d 836, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4801, 2011 WL 1261198 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. In his motion, he claims that he pled to certain crimes in return for a recommended sentence which included probation, but he was not given notice of the general conditions of probation at sentencing, as the court did not enter an order of probation until several days after sentencing. Appellant did not learn of the imposition of the general conditions until he reported to his probation officer after release from prison. He claims that the imposition of the general conditions thus violates due process, because he lacked notice and an opportunity to object to them. To the contrary, the supreme court established in State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589, 592-93 (Fla. 1996), that the general conditions, which are contained within the statutes or -within the forms contained within the rules of criminal procedure, may be imposed in a written order and not orally pronounced, because the statute and rule provide constructive notice to the defendant that these probation conditions can be imposed. In Hart, the court noted that defendants often do not see the probation order until they report to the probation office. However, because the defendant is on constructive notice of the conditions through their inclusion in statutes and rules, the defendant has the opportunity to object at sentencing if probation is imposed. Id. at 593; see also Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 105 (Fla.2000). Appellant’s argument has been rejected by the supreme court, as the trial court found.

Affirmed.

WARNER, POLEN and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. In his motion, he claims that he pled to certain crimes in return for a recommended sentence which included probation, but he was not given notice of the general conditions of probation at sentencing, as the court did not enter an order of probation until several days after sentencing. Appellant did not learn of the imposition of the general conditions until he reported to his probation officer after release from prison. He claims that the imposition of the general conditions thus violates due process, because he lacked notice and an opportunity to object to them. To the contrary, the supreme court established in State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589, 592-93 (Fla. 1996), that the general conditions, which are contained within the statutes or -within the forms contained within the rules of criminal procedure, may be imposed in a written order and not orally pronounced, because the statute and rule provide constructive notice to the defendant that these probation conditions can be imposed. In Hart, the court noted that defendants often do not see the probation order until they report to the probation office. However, because the defendant is on constructive notice of the conditions through their inclusion in statutes and rules, the defendant has the opportunity to object at sentencing if probation is imposed. Id. at 593; see also Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 105 (Fla.2000). Appellant’s argument has been rejected by the supreme court, as the trial court found.

Affirmed.

WARNER, POLEN and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 So. 3d 836, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4801, 2011 WL 1261198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fraysur-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack