State v. Emond

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Emond

668 So. 2d 599, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 85, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 145, 1996 WL 75327

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedFebruary 22, 1996

DocketNo. 85419

StatusPublished

This text of 668 So. 2d 599 (State v. Emond) 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

State v. Emond, 668 So. 2d 599, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 85, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 145, 1996 WL 75327 (Fla. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review a decision of the Second District Court of Appeal passing upon the following question certified to be of great public importance:

DOES THE SUPREME COURT’S PROMULGATION OF THE FORM “ORDER OF PROBATION” IN FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.986 CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO PROBATIONERS OF CONDITIONS 1-11 SUCH THAT ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THESE CONDITIONS BY THE TRIAL COURT IS UNNECESSARY?

See Emond v. State, 652 So.2d 419, 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Since we have already answered the identical question in the affirmative in State v. Hart, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S77 (Fla. Feb. 22, 1996), we quash the district court decision and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with Hart.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

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