Morales v. State

518 So. 2d 964, 1988 WL 4035
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 19, 1988
Docket86-2738
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 518 So. 2d 964 (Morales 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
Morales v. State, 518 So. 2d 964, 1988 WL 4035 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

518 So.2d 964 (1988)

Eladio MORALES, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-2738.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

January 19, 1988.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Beth C. Weitzner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL and DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

That part of the Order of Revocation of Probation which finds that the appellant, Eladio Morales, failed

"to comply with all the instructions of his Probation Supervisor, in that, on 07-22-86 the Probationer was instructed by his Probation Supervisor to set an appointment at Miami Mental Health Center for Alcohol and Drug Counseling, and as of September 5, 1986, he has failed to do so"

is stricken upon a holding that this condition — that Morales set up an appointment for alcohol and drug counseling — cannot be considered one imposed by the court by virtue of the court's general admonition that Morales comply with all instructions of the probation officer, Hutchinson v. State, 428 So.2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Holterhaus v. State, 417 So.2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), and such condition being therefore imposed by the probation officer only, the violation of it cannot serve as a basis for the revocation of probation. Hutchinson v. State, 428 So.2d 739; Holterhaus v. State, 417 So.2d 291; see Barber v. State, 344 So.2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). In all other respects the order under review is

Affirmed.

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

Related

BRYAN FACEN v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2023
Person v. State
83 So. 3d 940 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Odom v. State
15 So. 3d 672 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Centano v. State
880 So. 2d 1277 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Talley v. State
708 So. 2d 333 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Waldon v. State
670 So. 2d 1155 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Kiess v. State
642 So. 2d 1141 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Paterson v. State
612 So. 2d 692 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
White v. State
606 So. 2d 1265 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Ashrafi v. State
534 So. 2d 886 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
518 So. 2d 964, 1988 WL 4035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morales-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.