Hann v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hann v. State

653 So. 2d 404, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2045, 1995 WL 85259

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 3, 1995

DocketNo. 94-01062

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 653 So. 2d 404 (Hann 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

Hann v. State, 653 So. 2d 404, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2045, 1995 WL 85259 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

QUINCE, Judge.

Appellant, Henry Aaron Hann, appeals the judgment and sentence entered after his convictions for burglary and dealing in stolen property. We affirm the convictions but remand to the trial court to strike conditions of probation not orally pronounced.

The written probation order outlines a number of conditions of probation. Included in the list are the requirements that appellant not use intoxicants to excess, not visit places where intoxicants are illegally sold, dispensed or used, and submit to random testing for alcohol. The conditions involving the use of intoxicants and random alcohol testing are special conditions of probation and must be orally pronounced. Nank v. State, 646 So.2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Tomlinson v. State, 645 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). These two special conditions of probation not orally pronounced must be stricken.

The condition prohibiting appellant from visiting places where certain substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used is not a special condition of probation. This condition is a more precise definition of the general condition prohibiting association with persons engaged in criminal activities and need not be orally pronounced. Tomlinson.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgments but remand to the trial court to strike the probation conditions concerning using intoxicants to excess and random alcohol testing.

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

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

QUINCE, Judge.

Appellant, Henry Aaron Hann, appeals the judgment and sentence entered after his convictions for burglary and dealing in stolen property. We affirm the convictions but remand to the trial court to strike conditions of probation not orally pronounced.

The written probation order outlines a number of conditions of probation. Included in the list are the requirements that appellant not use intoxicants to excess, not visit places where intoxicants are illegally sold, dispensed or used, and submit to random testing for alcohol. The conditions involving the use of intoxicants and random alcohol testing are special conditions of probation and must be orally pronounced. Nank v. State, 646 So.2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Tomlinson v. State, 645 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). These two special conditions of probation not orally pronounced must be stricken.

The condition prohibiting appellant from visiting places where certain substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used is not a special condition of probation. This condition is a more precise definition of the general condition prohibiting association with persons engaged in criminal activities and need not be orally pronounced. Tomlinson.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgments but remand to the trial court to strike the probation conditions concerning using intoxicants to excess and random alcohol testing.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

653 So. 2d 404, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2045, 1995 WL 85259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hann-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack