Leroux v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Leroux v. State

665 So. 2d 1115, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5, 1996 WL 1177

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 3, 1996

DocketNo. 94-1187

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 665 So. 2d 1115 (Leroux 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

Leroux v. State, 665 So. 2d 1115, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5, 1996 WL 1177 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

David Leroux appeals his convictions for unnatural and lascivious acts and lewd conduct in the presence of a child. We affirm his convictions, but strike one condition of the probation order.

Leroux argues that the order of probation — which prohibited him from owning a firearm, required him to pay for drug testing, and prohibited him from using intoxicants to excess and visiting places where intoxicants are unlawfully sold or used — contained conditions which had not been orally pronounced. We affirm the probation conditions which prohibit Leroux from owning a firearm, which required him to pay for drug testing, and which prohibited him from visiting places where intoxicants or drugs are unlawfully sold or used, because those actions are statutorily prohibited and need not be orally pronounced. See Vasquez v. State, 663 So.2d 1343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Zeigler v. State, 647 So.2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We strike that portion of the condition of probation which prohibits Leroux from using intoxicants to excess since it is not statutorily prohibited nor was it orally pronounced.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

GLICKSTEIN, KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

David Leroux appeals his convictions for unnatural and lascivious acts and lewd conduct in the presence of a child. We affirm his convictions, but strike one condition of the probation order.

Leroux argues that the order of probation — which prohibited him from owning a firearm, required him to pay for drug testing, and prohibited him from using intoxicants to excess and visiting places where intoxicants are unlawfully sold or used — contained conditions which had not been orally pronounced. We affirm the probation conditions which prohibit Leroux from owning a firearm, which required him to pay for drug testing, and which prohibited him from visiting places where intoxicants or drugs are unlawfully sold or used, because those actions are statutorily prohibited and need not be orally pronounced. See Vasquez v. State, 663 So.2d 1343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Zeigler v. State, 647 So.2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We strike that portion of the condition of probation which prohibits Leroux from using intoxicants to excess since it is not statutorily prohibited nor was it orally pronounced.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

GLICKSTEIN, KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

665 So. 2d 1115, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5, 1996 WL 1177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leroux-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack