Reisberg v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Reisberg v. State

863 So. 2d 1272, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 516, 2004 WL 102816

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 23, 2004

DocketNo. 2D02-907

StatusPublished

This text of 863 So. 2d 1272 (Reisberg 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

Reisberg v. State, 863 So. 2d 1272, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 516, 2004 WL 102816 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, Judge.

In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rudolph Reisberg challenges his conviction and sentence for one count of cruelty to animals. We find merit in only one of Reisberg’s counsel’s issues; we otherwise affirm.

The State concedes that the trial court’s written probation order did not conform to its oral pronouncement at sentencing in that it required Reisberg to pay for his mental health evaluation as a special condition of probation. Accordingly, that requirement must be stricken from the written probation order. See Nisbett v. State, 660 So.2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We therefore affirm but remand with directions to the trial court to strike that portion of the written probation order that requires Reisberg to pay for his mental health evaluation.

Affirmed and remanded with directions.

SILBERMAN, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur.

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

DAVIS, Judge.

In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rudolph Reisberg challenges his conviction and sentence for one count of cruelty to animals. We find merit in only one of Reisberg’s counsel’s issues; we otherwise affirm.

The State concedes that the trial court’s written probation order did not conform to its oral pronouncement at sentencing in that it required Reisberg to pay for his mental health evaluation as a special condition of probation. Accordingly, that requirement must be stricken from the written probation order. See Nisbett v. State, 660 So.2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We therefore affirm but remand with directions to the trial court to strike that portion of the written probation order that requires Reisberg to pay for his mental health evaluation.

Affirmed and remanded with directions.

SILBERMAN, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

863 So. 2d 1272, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 516, 2004 WL 102816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reisberg-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack