Lesperance v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lesperance v. State

708 So. 2d 1038, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4740, 1998 WL 204706

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 1998

DocketNo. 96-2591

StatusPublished

This text of 708 So. 2d 1038 (Lesperance 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

Lesperance v. State, 708 So. 2d 1038, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4740, 1998 WL 204706 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A review of the record shows that the evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of indirect criminal contempt. However, as the State properly concedes, because there is nothing in the record suggesting any relationship between the appellant’s behavior which gave rise to the charge of indirect criminal contempt and the use of alcohol or [1039]*1039drugs, the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the following conditions of probation: abstinence from the use of alcohol, submission to weekly urinalysis, and evaluation for substance abuse. See Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla.1993).

Therefore, we affirm the conviction of indirect criminal contempt, but strike the above referenced conditions.

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

PER CURIAM.

A review of the record shows that the evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of indirect criminal contempt. However, as the State properly concedes, because there is nothing in the record suggesting any relationship between the appellant’s behavior which gave rise to the charge of indirect criminal contempt and the use of alcohol or [1039]*1039drugs, the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the following conditions of probation: abstinence from the use of alcohol, submission to weekly urinalysis, and evaluation for substance abuse. See Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla.1993).

Therefore, we affirm the conviction of indirect criminal contempt, but strike the above referenced conditions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 So. 2d 1038, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4740, 1998 WL 204706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lesperance-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack