Royals v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Royals v. State

673 So. 2d 569, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5448, 1996 WL 271554

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 22, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1197

StatusPublished

This text of 673 So. 2d 569 (Royals 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

Royals v. State, 673 So. 2d 569, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5448, 1996 WL 271554 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges three special conditions of community control and probation which were not orally pronounced at sentencing. Based on State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589 (Fla.1996), we affirm as to condition six which provides that appellant will not use intoxicants to excess nor visit places where intoxicants, drugs or other dangerous substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used. We reverse conditions twelve and thirteen which were not orally pronounced and are not standard conditions of community control or probation. Shacraha v. State, 635 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

Affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions to eliminate conditions twelve and thirteen from the order of community control.

GUNTHER, C.J., and WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges three special conditions of community control and probation which were not orally pronounced at sentencing. Based on State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589 (Fla.1996), we affirm as to condition six which provides that appellant will not use intoxicants to excess nor visit places where intoxicants, drugs or other dangerous substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used. We reverse conditions twelve and thirteen which were not orally pronounced and are not standard conditions of community control or probation. Shacraha v. State, 635 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

Affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions to eliminate conditions twelve and thirteen from the order of community control.

GUNTHER, C.J., and WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

673 So. 2d 569, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5448, 1996 WL 271554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royals-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack