Ogden v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ogden v. State

701 So. 2d 673, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13290, 1997 WL 730718

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 26, 1997

DocketNo. 97-489

StatusPublished

This text of 701 So. 2d 673 (Ogden 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

Ogden v. State, 701 So. 2d 673, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13290, 1997 WL 730718 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a proceeding in which the appellant sought enforcement of an order granting postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In the rule 3.850 order the court cited Lowell v. State, 652 So.2d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), and Jennings v. State, 645 So.2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), and indicated that a probationary condition “concerning intoxicants” was stricken. However, a subsequently entered amended order of probation contained the same conditions regarding intoxicants. Because we are unsure as to the extent of relief which the court intended in the rule 3.850 order, and in light of the further uncertainty ensuing from the subsequent amended order of probation, the challenged order on the motion to enforce is reversed as to this matter. The order is otherwise affirmed, and the case is remanded for clarification or other appropriate action as to the conditions concerning intoxicants.

MINER, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a proceeding in which the appellant sought enforcement of an order granting postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In the rule 3.850 order the court cited Lowell v. State, 652 So.2d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), and Jennings v. State, 645 So.2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), and indicated that a probationary condition “concerning intoxicants” was stricken. However, a subsequently entered amended order of probation contained the same conditions regarding intoxicants. Because we are unsure as to the extent of relief which the court intended in the rule 3.850 order, and in light of the further uncertainty ensuing from the subsequent amended order of probation, the challenged order on the motion to enforce is reversed as to this matter. The order is otherwise affirmed, and the case is remanded for clarification or other appropriate action as to the conditions concerning intoxicants.

MINER, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

701 So. 2d 673, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13290, 1997 WL 730718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ogden-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack