Royals v. State

673 So. 2d 569, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5448, 1996 WL 271554
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 22, 1996·No. No. 95-1197·Published

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

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

673 So. 2d 569 (Royals v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Hart
668 So. 2d 589 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1996)
Shacraha v. State
635 So. 2d 1051 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)