Torres v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Torres v. State

725 So. 2d 1207, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 138, 1999 WL 9695

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 13, 1999

DocketNo. 97-05099

StatusPublished

This text of 725 So. 2d 1207 (Torres 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

Torres v. State, 725 So. 2d 1207, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 138, 1999 WL 9695 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Israel Torres appeals the sentence imposed after pleading nolo contendere to possession of cannabis, arguing that the trial court erred by imposing a special condition of probation prohibiting him from using or possessing alcohol, associating with others who use alcohol, and from frequenting places where consumption of alcohol is the primary source of business. Torres preserved this issue by objecting on the grounds that this part of condition 18 was unrelated to the offense of possession of cannabis. This court has concluded that conditions of probation prohibiting the use of alcohol or frequenting places where alcohol is the main source of business, or associating with others that use alcohol are invalid in a possession of cannabis case because the conditions are not related to the crime. See Richardson v. State, 620 So.2d 257, 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Accordingly, we strike that portion of condition 18 as it relates to alcohol.

PARKER, C.J., and WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Israel Torres appeals the sentence imposed after pleading nolo contendere to possession of cannabis, arguing that the trial court erred by imposing a special condition of probation prohibiting him from using or possessing alcohol, associating with others who use alcohol, and from frequenting places where consumption of alcohol is the primary source of business. Torres preserved this issue by objecting on the grounds that this part of condition 18 was unrelated to the offense of possession of cannabis. This court has concluded that conditions of probation prohibiting the use of alcohol or frequenting places where alcohol is the main source of business, or associating with others that use alcohol are invalid in a possession of cannabis case because the conditions are not related to the crime. See Richardson v. State, 620 So.2d 257, 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Accordingly, we strike that portion of condition 18 as it relates to alcohol.

PARKER, C.J., and WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

725 So. 2d 1207, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 138, 1999 WL 9695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack