Stackhouse v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stackhouse v. State

576 So. 2d 923, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2683, 1991 WL 42700

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 27, 1991

DocketNo. 89-1281

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 576 So. 2d 923 (Stackhouse 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

Stackhouse v. State, 576 So. 2d 923, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2683, 1991 WL 42700 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

SHIVERS, Chief Judge.

Stackhouse was adjudged guilty of a third degree felony and a first degree misdemeanor. He was sentenced to five years probation and one year probation to run concurrently. Of the four issues Stack-house raises on appeal, only one has merit.

The written judgment placing Stack-house on probation contains conditions not announced at sentencing — payment of one dollar a month to a rehabilitation corporation, attendance at drug evaluation and counseling as directed by the probation officer, and submission to blood and breath tests as directed by the probation officer. Because these conditions were not announced at sentencing, reversal and remand is mandated for correction of the written order to conform to the oral pronouncement. Rowland v. State, 548 So.2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

ERVIN, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.

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

SHIVERS, Chief Judge.

Stackhouse was adjudged guilty of a third degree felony and a first degree misdemeanor. He was sentenced to five years probation and one year probation to run concurrently. Of the four issues Stack-house raises on appeal, only one has merit.

The written judgment placing Stack-house on probation contains conditions not announced at sentencing — payment of one dollar a month to a rehabilitation corporation, attendance at drug evaluation and counseling as directed by the probation officer, and submission to blood and breath tests as directed by the probation officer. Because these conditions were not announced at sentencing, reversal and remand is mandated for correction of the written order to conform to the oral pronouncement. Rowland v. State, 548 So.2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

ERVIN, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 So. 2d 923, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2683, 1991 WL 42700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stackhouse-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack