Hickey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hickey v. State

685 So. 2d 845, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10221, 1995 WL 567364

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 27, 1995

DocketNo. 94-03616

StatusPublished

This text of 685 So. 2d 845 (Hickey 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

Hickey v. State, 685 So. 2d 845, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10221, 1995 WL 567364 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kathleen Mary Hickey appeals her judgments and sentences for possession of cocaine, manufacture of cannabis, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Although she has raised several issues, only her challenge to certain conditions of probation has merit.

We strike the portion of special condition 4 that prohibits Hickey from carrying, weapons without her probation officer’s consent, and the portion of condition 7 that prohibits the use of alcohol to excess, because those conditions were not announced at sentencing. See Brown v. State, 658 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Tomlinson v. State, 645 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We affirm the remaining portion of condition 4 that prohibits Hickey, a convicted felon, from possessing, carrying or owning a firearm. See § 790.23, Fla.Stat. (1991); Brown, 658 So.2d 1058. We also affirm the remaining portion of condition 7. See § 948.03(l)(i), Fla.Stat. (1991); Tomlin-son, 645 So.2d 1.

Judgments and sentences affirmed as modified.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Kathleen Mary Hickey appeals her judgments and sentences for possession of cocaine, manufacture of cannabis, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Although she has raised several issues, only her challenge to certain conditions of probation has merit.

We strike the portion of special condition 4 that prohibits Hickey from carrying, weapons without her probation officer’s consent, and the portion of condition 7 that prohibits the use of alcohol to excess, because those conditions were not announced at sentencing. See Brown v. State, 658 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Tomlinson v. State, 645 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We affirm the remaining portion of condition 4 that prohibits Hickey, a convicted felon, from possessing, carrying or owning a firearm. See § 790.23, Fla.Stat. (1991); Brown, 658 So.2d 1058. We also affirm the remaining portion of condition 7. See § 948.03(l)(i), Fla.Stat. (1991); Tomlin-son, 645 So.2d 1.

Judgments and sentences affirmed as modified.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

685 So. 2d 845, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10221, 1995 WL 567364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hickey-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack