Lutz v. State

686 So. 2d 603, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3717, 1996 WL 172084
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 12, 1996·No. No. 95-00724·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

686 So. 2d 603 (Lutz v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Scott v. State
681 So. 2d 738 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)