Lutz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lutz v. State

686 So. 2d 603, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3717, 1996 WL 172084

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 1996

DocketNo. 95-00724

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 686 So. 2d 603 (Lutz 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

Lutz v. State, 686 So. 2d 603, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3717, 1996 WL 172084 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Sheldon Theodore Lutz, challenges his convictions of trafficking and possession of various controlled substances, possession of paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm by a felon. We find no error in the asserted impermissible admission of evidence, and we affirm the judgments and sentences.

Certain special conditions of probation imposed at sentencing, however, were not orally pronounced and must be stricken. Portions of condition (20) require appellant to submit to and pay for an evaluation to determine whether or not he has a treatable alcohol problem, and to pay for any drug or alcohol treatment program. These are special conditions of probation which must be orally pronounced at sentencing. State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589 (Fla.1996); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.986(e). Since these conditions were not orally pronounced at sentencing they must be stricken.

We, accordingly, strike the improper portions of probation condition (20) discussed above, but affirm the judgments and sentences in all other respects.

. THREADGILL, C.J., and RYDER and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Sheldon Theodore Lutz, challenges his convictions of trafficking and possession of various controlled substances, possession of paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm by a felon. We find no error in the asserted impermissible admission of evidence, and we affirm the judgments and sentences.

Certain special conditions of probation imposed at sentencing, however, were not orally pronounced and must be stricken. Portions of condition (20) require appellant to submit to and pay for an evaluation to determine whether or not he has a treatable alcohol problem, and to pay for any drug or alcohol treatment program. These are special conditions of probation which must be orally pronounced at sentencing. State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589 (Fla.1996); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.986(e). Since these conditions were not orally pronounced at sentencing they must be stricken.

We, accordingly, strike the improper portions of probation condition (20) discussed above, but affirm the judgments and sentences in all other respects.

. THREADGILL, C.J., and RYDER and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

686 So. 2d 603, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3717, 1996 WL 172084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lutz-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack