Gentry v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gentry v. State

614 So. 2d 8, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1678, 1993 WL 33810

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 1993

DocketNo. 91-02857

StatusPublished

This text of 614 So. 2d 8 (Gentry 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

Gentry v. State, 614 So. 2d 8, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1678, 1993 WL 33810 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

HALL, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant, Lisa Gentry, contends the trial court erred in imposing special conditions of community control and probation that were not orally pronounced by the trial court at sentencing.

The following special conditions are those at issue:

(6) You will not use intoxicants to excess; nor will you visit places where intoxicants, drugs and other dangerous substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used.

[[Image here]]

(10) You shall visit no bars.

(11) You will pay for any alcohol, drugs, or mental evaluation and treatment if ordered.

[[Image here]]

(13) You will maintain an hourly accounting of all your activities on a daily log which you will submit to your community control officer upon request.

As we stated in Williams v. State, 542 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989):

The written sentence and community control or probation order must conform to the judge’s oral pronouncement at sentencing. The inclusion in the written order of special conditions of probation that were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing requires us to reverse the written order of probation and remand for correction.

See also Olvey v. State, 609 So.2d 640, (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), and cases cited therein.

Accordingly, we reverse the written order of community control and probation and remand for correction to reflect only those conditions orally pronounced at sentencing or those allowed by statute.

PARKER and BLUE, JJ., concur.

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

HALL, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant, Lisa Gentry, contends the trial court erred in imposing special conditions of community control and probation that were not orally pronounced by the trial court at sentencing.

The following special conditions are those at issue:

(6) You will not use intoxicants to excess; nor will you visit places where intoxicants, drugs and other dangerous substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used.

[[Image here]]

(10) You shall visit no bars.

(11) You will pay for any alcohol, drugs, or mental evaluation and treatment if ordered.

[[Image here]]

(13) You will maintain an hourly accounting of all your activities on a daily log which you will submit to your community control officer upon request.

As we stated in Williams v. State, 542 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989):

The written sentence and community control or probation order must conform to the judge’s oral pronouncement at sentencing. The inclusion in the written order of special conditions of probation that were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing requires us to reverse the written order of probation and remand for correction.

See also Olvey v. State, 609 So.2d 640, (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), and cases cited therein.

Accordingly, we reverse the written order of community control and probation and remand for correction to reflect only those conditions orally pronounced at sentencing or those allowed by statute.

PARKER and BLUE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

614 So. 2d 8, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1678, 1993 WL 33810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gentry-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack