O'Neal v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

O'Neal v. State

581 So. 2d 654, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6845, 1991 WL 118230

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in O'Neal v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 566 So. 2d 375 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 5, 1991·No. No. 90-00538·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges special conditions eleven and eighteen of his probation. We find that the trial court correctly imposed condition eighteen, but strike condition eleven because there was no oral pronouncement of this condition by the trial court at the plea and sentencing hearing. Williams v. State, 542 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d [655]*655DCA 1989). In all other aspects, we affirm.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and RYDER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges special conditions eleven and eighteen of his probation. We find that the trial court correctly imposed condition eighteen, but strike condition eleven because there was no oral pronouncement of this condition by the trial court at the plea and sentencing hearing. Williams v. State, 542 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d [655]*655DCA 1989). In all other aspects, we affirm.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and RYDER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

O'Neal v. State, 581 So. 2d 654, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6845, 1991 WL 118230 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

581 So. 2d 654 (O'Neal v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related