Hix v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hix v. State

686 So. 2d 8, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2824, 1996 WL 120955

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 20, 1996

DocketNo. 94-04600

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 686 So. 2d 8 (Hix 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

Hix v. State, 686 So. 2d 8, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2824, 1996 WL 120955 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, convicted of trespassing on a construction site, challenges his conviction, certain costs that were imposed and certain conditions of his probation. We affirm his conviction, but strike the $15 contribution to the Hillsborough County Improvement Fund. See Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Although appellant has also challenged conditions four and seven of his probation because they were not orally pronounced, in view of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589 (Fla.1996), we [9]*9conclude that appellant had constructive notice of those probation conditions. Accordingly, the court did not err in failing to orally pronounce them at sentencing.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, convicted of trespassing on a construction site, challenges his conviction, certain costs that were imposed and certain conditions of his probation. We affirm his conviction, but strike the $15 contribution to the Hillsborough County Improvement Fund. See Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Although appellant has also challenged conditions four and seven of his probation because they were not orally pronounced, in view of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589 (Fla.1996), we [9]*9conclude that appellant had constructive notice of those probation conditions. Accordingly, the court did not err in failing to orally pronounce them at sentencing.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

686 So. 2d 8, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2824, 1996 WL 120955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hix-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack