Rider v. State

764 So. 2d 576, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 597, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1429, 2000 WL 963873
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 13, 2000
DocketNo. SC95060
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 764 So. 2d 576 (Rider v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rider v. State, 764 So. 2d 576, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 597, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1429, 2000 WL 963873 (Fla. 2000).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Rider v. State, 724 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal citing as authority its opinion in Maddox v. State, 708 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), approved in part, disapproved in part, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981). Rider contends that a condition of probation imposed by the trial court is overly broad. For the reasons expressed in our opinion in Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 105 n. 11 (Fla.2000), we approve the decision of the Fifth District that this type of sentencing error must be preserved in order to be raised on direct appeal.1

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Spencer v. State
764 So. 2d 576 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
764 So. 2d 576, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 597, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1429, 2000 WL 963873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rider-v-state-fla-2000.