Tate v. State

683 So. 2d 626, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12458, 1996 WL 681072
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 27, 1996
DocketNo. 95-03483
StatusPublished

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

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
683 So. 2d 626, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12458, 1996 WL 681072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tate-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.