Mitsakos v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mitsakos v. State

579 So. 2d 336, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4296, 1991 WL 74819

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 10, 1991

DocketNo. 88-01111

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 579 So. 2d 336 (Mitsakos 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

Mitsakos v. State, 579 So. 2d 336, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4296, 1991 WL 74819 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

RYDER, Judge.

In this appeal from a judgment and sentence for obtaining property with a worthless check, Nicholas Mitsakos raises three issues. We find merit only in the issue that the trial court imposed invalid conditions of probation.

Mr. Mitsakos challenges all five conditions; however, we hold that only the first three conditions are invalid. Those conditions require Mr. Mitsakos to (1) refrain from the consumption of any alcoholic beverage; (2) not to visit any bars, taverns, or any establishment whose primary business is the sale of intoxicants to the public; and (3) at the direction of his probation officer, submit himself for substance abuse counseling and treatment at his own expense. The trial court did not make any findings supporting the imposition of these conditions. These conditions are unrelated to the crime for which Mr. Mitsakos was convicted, and none of these conditions relate to criminal activity. See Rodriguez v. State, 378 So.2d 7 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). We therefore hold that the trial court erred by imposing these three conditions of probation. See Edmunds v. State, 559 So.2d 415 (Fla.2d DCA 1990). The remaining conditions are valid.

Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence, but strike special conditions of probation one through three.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

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

RYDER, Judge.

In this appeal from a judgment and sentence for obtaining property with a worthless check, Nicholas Mitsakos raises three issues. We find merit only in the issue that the trial court imposed invalid conditions of probation.

Mr. Mitsakos challenges all five conditions; however, we hold that only the first three conditions are invalid. Those conditions require Mr. Mitsakos to (1) refrain from the consumption of any alcoholic beverage; (2) not to visit any bars, taverns, or any establishment whose primary business is the sale of intoxicants to the public; and (3) at the direction of his probation officer, submit himself for substance abuse counseling and treatment at his own expense. The trial court did not make any findings supporting the imposition of these conditions. These conditions are unrelated to the crime for which Mr. Mitsakos was convicted, and none of these conditions relate to criminal activity. See Rodriguez v. State, 378 So.2d 7 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). We therefore hold that the trial court erred by imposing these three conditions of probation. See Edmunds v. State, 559 So.2d 415 (Fla.2d DCA 1990). The remaining conditions are valid.

Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence, but strike special conditions of probation one through three.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

579 So. 2d 336, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4296, 1991 WL 74819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitsakos-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack