Harlan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harlan v. State

707 So. 2d 415, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2879, 1998 WL 130050

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 25, 1998

DocketNo. 96-01020

StatusPublished

This text of 707 So. 2d 415 (Harlan 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

Harlan v. State, 707 So. 2d 415, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2879, 1998 WL 130050 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

WHATLEY, Acting Chief Judge.

In this appeal brought pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we have found no error affecting Harlan’s conviction; however, we strike certain probation conditions.

The trial court improperly imposed special conditions of probation without announcing these conditions at sentencing. This was error. See Nank v. State, 646 So.2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Probation condition 13 requires Harlan to waive extradition should a violation of probation occur. We strike this probation condition because it is a,special condition of probation that was not orally [416]*416pronounced at sentencing. See Reiter v. State, 674 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We also strike that portion of probation condition 12 which requires Harlan to pay for random drug, alcohol and controlled substance tests, because it was not orally pronounced at sentencing. See Williams v. State, 700 So.2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence, but strike certain probation conditions imposed by the trial court.

NORTHCUTT and GREEN, JJ., concur.

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

WHATLEY, Acting Chief Judge.

In this appeal brought pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we have found no error affecting Harlan’s conviction; however, we strike certain probation conditions.

The trial court improperly imposed special conditions of probation without announcing these conditions at sentencing. This was error. See Nank v. State, 646 So.2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Probation condition 13 requires Harlan to waive extradition should a violation of probation occur. We strike this probation condition because it is a,special condition of probation that was not orally [416]*416pronounced at sentencing. See Reiter v. State, 674 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We also strike that portion of probation condition 12 which requires Harlan to pay for random drug, alcohol and controlled substance tests, because it was not orally pronounced at sentencing. See Williams v. State, 700 So.2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence, but strike certain probation conditions imposed by the trial court.

NORTHCUTT and GREEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

707 So. 2d 415, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2879, 1998 WL 130050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harlan-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack