Jaworski v. State

650 So. 2d 172, 1995 WL 46616
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 8, 1995
Docket93-3758
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 650 So. 2d 172 (Jaworski 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
Jaworski v. State, 650 So. 2d 172, 1995 WL 46616 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

650 So.2d 172 (1995)

Theodore JAWORSKI, a/k/a Theodore Williamson, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 93-3758.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

February 8, 1995.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Margaret Good-Earnest, Eric M. Cumfer and Steven Malone, Asst. Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

*173 Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the conviction and sentence of appellant. We also affirm the condition of probation providing that appellant will not visit places where controlled substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used. This court recently held:

[C]ondition eight, prohibiting defendant from visiting places where controlled substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used, is a valid condition of probation. Such a condition is a more explicit clarification of conduct prohibited under subsection 948.03(1)(i), Florida Statutes (1991), which states as an approved condition of probation that an offender may "not associate with persons engaged in criminal activities." This is a general condition that is valid and need not have been pronounced in open court. Accordingly, we approve of this condition.

Zeigler v. State, 647 So.2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); See also Tomlinson v. State, 645 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

However, we strike the condition of probation stating that appellant will not use intoxicants to excess. Although included within the written order, this condition was not pronounced in open court and is not a statutory condition of probation. See Zeigler, 647 So.2d at 273 (citing Cumbie v. State, 597 So.2d 946, 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

DELL, C.J., and HERSEY and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Demott v. State
160 So. 3d 520 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
W.J. v. State
688 So. 2d 954 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Carter v. State
677 So. 2d 1349 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Holmes v. State
658 So. 2d 1185 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Swinford v. State
651 So. 2d 225 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
650 So. 2d 172, 1995 WL 46616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jaworski-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.