Miller v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Miller v. State

679 So. 2d 1186, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 861, 1996 WL 47691

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 7, 1996

DocketNo. 94-04184

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 679 So. 2d 1186 (Miller 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

Miller v. State, 679 So. 2d 1186, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 861, 1996 WL 47691 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals his judgment and sentence for felony possession of marijuana. We find error only in the imposition of certain conditions of probation. We modify the probation order as follows: strike that portion of condition four which implies that the defendant’s probation officer may consent to the defendant’s possession of a firearm and that portion of condition four which pertains only to weapons; strike that portion of condition six relating to the excessive use of intoxicants; strike that portion of condition thirteen that requires the defendant to pay for random testing; and strike conditions twelve and fifteen. See Roberson v. State, 654 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Daughtery v. State, 654 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Luby v. State, 648 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We also strike condition eighteen because it is vague and impermissibly delegates judicial authority to the defendant’s probation officer. Condition eighteen directs the defendant not to frequent or loiter in high drug areas or areas so designated by his probation officer. See Huff v. State, 554 So.2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Finally, we strike condition nine which requires the defendant to pay twelve dollars to First Step, Inc., because the trial court provided no statutory reference for the imposition of this cost. See Roberson, 654 So.2d 1256.

Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and modify the probation conditions as discussed above.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and FULMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals his judgment and sentence for felony possession of marijuana. We find error only in the imposition of certain conditions of probation. We modify the probation order as follows: strike that portion of condition four which implies that the defendant’s probation officer may consent to the defendant’s possession of a firearm and that portion of condition four which pertains only to weapons; strike that portion of condition six relating to the excessive use of intoxicants; strike that portion of condition thirteen that requires the defendant to pay for random testing; and strike conditions twelve and fifteen. See Roberson v. State, 654 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Daughtery v. State, 654 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Luby v. State, 648 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We also strike condition eighteen because it is vague and impermissibly delegates judicial authority to the defendant’s probation officer. Condition eighteen directs the defendant not to frequent or loiter in high drug areas or areas so designated by his probation officer. See Huff v. State, 554 So.2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Finally, we strike condition nine which requires the defendant to pay twelve dollars to First Step, Inc., because the trial court provided no statutory reference for the imposition of this cost. See Roberson, 654 So.2d 1256.

Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and modify the probation conditions as discussed above.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and FULMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

679 So. 2d 1186, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 861, 1996 WL 47691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack