Gomez-Rodriqueq v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gomez-Rodriqueq v. State

632 So. 2d 709, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1826, 1994 WL 63286

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 4, 1994·No. No. 93-1582·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Teodomiro Gomez-Rodriqueq entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of purchase of cocaine a violation of § 893.13(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1991). He was adjudicated guilty and placed on probation for four years with special conditions. We affirm, the conviction, the sentence and the conditions of probation except one: we strike condition 21. Condition 21 requires that appellant consume no alcoholic beverages. There is no evidence in the record on appeal that the offense was alcohol related. The condition is, therefore, invalid. See Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla.1993).

AFFIRMED as modified.

W. SHARP, DIAMANTIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Teodomiro Gomez-Rodriqueq entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of purchase of cocaine a violation of § 893.13(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1991). He was adjudicated guilty and placed on probation for four years with special conditions. We affirm, the conviction, the sentence and the conditions of probation except one: we strike condition 21. Condition 21 requires that appellant consume no alcoholic beverages. There is no evidence in the record on appeal that the offense was alcohol related. The condition is, therefore, invalid. See Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla.1993).

AFFIRMED as modified.

W. SHARP, DIAMANTIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Gomez-Rodriqueq v. State, 632 So. 2d 709, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1826, 1994 WL 63286 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

632 So. 2d 709 (Gomez-Rodriqueq v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related