Henke v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Henke v. State

686 So. 2d 11, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4555, 1996 WL 210895

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 1, 1996·No. No. 94-03893·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions. We strike, however, condition 9 of the orders of probation and community control because it is a special condition which was not orally pronounced at sentencing. Nank v. State, 646 So.2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We also strike the words “at your own expense” from [12]*12condition 10. Luhy v. State, 648 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Affirmed as modified.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions. We strike, however, condition 9 of the orders of probation and community control because it is a special condition which was not orally pronounced at sentencing. Nank v. State, 646 So.2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We also strike the words “at your own expense” from [12]*12condition 10. Luhy v. State, 648 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Affirmed as modified.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

Henke v. State, 686 So. 2d 11, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4555, 1996 WL 210895 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

686 So. 2d 11 (Henke v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related