Silas v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Silas v. State

592 So. 2d 384, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 628, 1992 WL 16013

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 1992

DocketNo. 90-02873

StatusPublished

This text of 592 So. 2d 384 (Silas 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

Silas v. State, 592 So. 2d 384, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 628, 1992 WL 16013 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

DANAHY, Judge.

The appellant challenges her convictions and sentences for grand theft and petit theft. We find no error with respect to her convictions and affirm.

The trial court placed the appellant on probation with respect to both offenses. We find no conflict between the terms of probation as announced at sentencing and the terms of probation set forth in the written order. In the written order the trial court imposed concurrent terms of five years probation and six months probation.

At sentencing the trial court announced a special condition of probation to which the appellant objected. On appeal the appellant argues that this special condition is invalid under the tests set forth by this court in Rodriguez v. State, 378 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We disagree and affirm the special condition of probation announced at sentencing.

The appellant also asks us to reverse the special conditions of probation which appear on the written order of probation but were not announced at sentencing. The inclusion in the written order of special conditions of probation that were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing requires us to reverse the written order of probation and remand for correction so that the written order of probation conforms to the oral pronouncement. Williams v. State, 542 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The appellant’s sentences are otherwise affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.

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

DANAHY, Judge.

The appellant challenges her convictions and sentences for grand theft and petit theft. We find no error with respect to her convictions and affirm.

The trial court placed the appellant on probation with respect to both offenses. We find no conflict between the terms of probation as announced at sentencing and the terms of probation set forth in the written order. In the written order the trial court imposed concurrent terms of five years probation and six months probation.

At sentencing the trial court announced a special condition of probation to which the appellant objected. On appeal the appellant argues that this special condition is invalid under the tests set forth by this court in Rodriguez v. State, 378 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We disagree and affirm the special condition of probation announced at sentencing.

The appellant also asks us to reverse the special conditions of probation which appear on the written order of probation but were not announced at sentencing. The inclusion in the written order of special conditions of probation that were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing requires us to reverse the written order of probation and remand for correction so that the written order of probation conforms to the oral pronouncement. Williams v. State, 542 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The appellant’s sentences are otherwise affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 So. 2d 384, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 628, 1992 WL 16013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silas-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack