Murray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Murray v. State

708 So. 2d 1033, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3759, 1998 WL 171055

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 15, 1998

DocketNo. 96-02253

StatusPublished

This text of 708 So. 2d 1033 (Murray 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

Murray v. State, 708 So. 2d 1033, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3759, 1998 WL 171055 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Judge.

Shirley Diane Murray appeals her conviction and sentence for aggravated child abuse. We affirm without discussion all her issues related to the conviction. Except for certain community control and probation conditions, we affirm the amended sentence. We strike special condition 12 of her community control and probation because it was not orally pronounced. See Nank v. State, 646 So.2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We modify probation condition 20 to require Murray to work diligently at a lawful occupation or actively seek employment. See Godley v. State, 659 So.2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We point out that the special condition prohibiting custody of any children during the period of supervision is a valid special condition. See Rodriguez v. State, 378 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

Judgment and sentence affirmed; condition 12 stricken; probation condition 20 modified.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.

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

BLUE, Judge.

Shirley Diane Murray appeals her conviction and sentence for aggravated child abuse. We affirm without discussion all her issues related to the conviction. Except for certain community control and probation conditions, we affirm the amended sentence. We strike special condition 12 of her community control and probation because it was not orally pronounced. See Nank v. State, 646 So.2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We modify probation condition 20 to require Murray to work diligently at a lawful occupation or actively seek employment. See Godley v. State, 659 So.2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We point out that the special condition prohibiting custody of any children during the period of supervision is a valid special condition. See Rodriguez v. State, 378 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

Judgment and sentence affirmed; condition 12 stricken; probation condition 20 modified.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 So. 2d 1033, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3759, 1998 WL 171055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack