Strong v. State
599 So. 2d 264, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6387, 1992 WL 112123
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Strong v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 349 →
Opinion
Appellant raised three issues. We find merit, however, only in the contention that condition (10) of his probation should be stricken. Condition (10) requires that Appellant not visit bars, restaurants, or any place where alcoholic beverages are served without permission from the probation officer, after consent from the judge. We strike this condition on the authority of Carroll v. State, 578 So.2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We otherwise affirm.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Strong v. State, 599 So. 2d 264, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6387, 1992 WL 112123 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).
599 So. 2d 264 (Strong v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Carroll v. State
578 So. 2d 868 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)