Hudson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hudson v. State

616 So. 2d 1229, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5130, 1993 WL 135706

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hudson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 596 So. 2d 1213 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 30, 1993·No. No. 92-01515·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the appellant’s judgments and sentences. We strike special conditions 6, 10, 11 and 13 from the written order of community control and special condition 6 from the written order of probation because these conditions were neither pronounced at sentencing nor statutorily authorized. Vinyard v. State, 586 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

HALL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the appellant’s judgments and sentences. We strike special conditions 6, 10, 11 and 13 from the written order of community control and special condition 6 from the written order of probation because these conditions were neither pronounced at sentencing nor statutorily authorized. Vinyard v. State, 586 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

HALL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Hudson v. State, 616 So. 2d 1229, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5130, 1993 WL 135706 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

616 So. 2d 1229 (Hudson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related