Tate v. State

683 So. 2d 626, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12458, 1996 WL 681072
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 27, 1996·No. No. 95-03483·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s judgment and sentences. We strike, however, the words “to pay for” from condition 8 of the orders of probation because that portion is a special condition which was not orally pronounced at sentencing. Luby v. State, 648 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Affirmed as modified.

FRANK, A.C.J., and BLUE and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

Tate v. State, 683 So. 2d 626, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12458, 1996 WL 681072 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

683 So. 2d 626 (Tate v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Luby v. State
648 So. 2d 308 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)