State v. Sheffield
668 So. 2d 600, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 85, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 140, 1996 WL 75330
Opinion
We have for review a decision of the Second District Court of Appeal passing upon a 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 Sheffield v. State, 651 So.2d 160, 161 (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, 668 So.2d 589 (Fla.1996), we quash the district court decision and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with Hart.
It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Sheffield, 668 So. 2d 600, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 85, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 140, 1996 WL 75330 (Fla. 1996).
668 So. 2d 600 (State v. Sheffield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sheffield v. State
651 So. 2d 160 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
State v. Hart
668 So. 2d 589 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1996)