Jennings v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jennings v. State

658 So. 2d 1204, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8518, 1995 WL 471840

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 11, 1995

DocketNo. 94-03127

StatusPublished

This text of 658 So. 2d 1204 (Jennings 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

Jennings v. State, 658 So. 2d 1204, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8518, 1995 WL 471840 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his convictions for two counts of sexual battery, alleging the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on the destruction of evidence. We affirm his convictions since we find no error in the court’s ruling on this issue, but we strike two special conditions of probation that were not orally pronounced at sentencing.

Pursuant to this court’s opinion in Fitts v. State, 649 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), we strike that portion of condition 4 prohibiting appellant from possessing, carrying or owning a weapon and that part of condition 7 prohibiting the use of intoxicants to excess. The special conditions of probation were not orally pronounced; therefore we strike them. In all other respects the judgments and sentences are affirmed.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his convictions for two counts of sexual battery, alleging the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on the destruction of evidence. We affirm his convictions since we find no error in the court’s ruling on this issue, but we strike two special conditions of probation that were not orally pronounced at sentencing.

Pursuant to this court’s opinion in Fitts v. State, 649 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), we strike that portion of condition 4 prohibiting appellant from possessing, carrying or owning a weapon and that part of condition 7 prohibiting the use of intoxicants to excess. The special conditions of probation were not orally pronounced; therefore we strike them. In all other respects the judgments and sentences are affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

658 So. 2d 1204, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8518, 1995 WL 471840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jennings-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack