Iengo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Iengo v. State

686 So. 2d 13, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5915, 1996 WL 293785

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 5, 1996·No. No. 94-03468·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence. 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 condition 10 for the same reason. Luby v. State, 648 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Affirmed as modified.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and FRANK and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence. 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 condition 10 for the same reason. Luby v. State, 648 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Affirmed as modified.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and FRANK and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Iengo v. State, 686 So. 2d 13, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5915, 1996 WL 293785 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

686 So. 2d 13 (Iengo v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related