Laster v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Laster v. State

658 So. 2d 1129, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8010, 1995 WL 443957

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 28, 1995

DocketNo. 94-02031

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 658 So. 2d 1129 (Laster 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

Laster v. State, 658 So. 2d 1129, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8010, 1995 WL 443957 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Judge.

James E. Laster appeals numerous felony convictions and sentences. He challenges three special conditions of probation that were not orally pronounced at sentencing. We agree that portions of two conditions must be stricken but otherwise affirm.

Probation condition (3) states: “You will not possess, carry or own any weapons, firearms, or destructive devices.” We affirm the portion of condition 3 which prohibits the ownership or possession of a firearm, but we strike the portion that refers to other weapons and destructive devices. See Fitts v. State, 649 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Probation condition (5) states: “You will not use intoxicants to excess. You will [1130]*1130not visit places where intoxicants, drugs or other dangerous substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed, or used.” We strike the portion relating to excessive use of intoxicants, but affirm the remainder as a more precise definition of a general prohibition that need not be orally pronounced. See Tomlinson v. State, 645 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Judgments and sentences affirmed; specified probation conditions stricken.

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

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