Weidmann v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Weidmann v. State

582 So. 2d 1251, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7613, 1991 WL 136874

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 24, 1991

DocketNo. 90-02101

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 582 So. 2d 1251 (Weidmann 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

Weidmann v. State, 582 So. 2d 1251, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7613, 1991 WL 136874 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of sexual battery of and committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of [1252]*1252sixteen over whom he had familial authority. He challenges the trial court’s modification of his probation that imposes a special condition which precludes him from living within a three-quarter’s mile radius of any school for minors. Pursuant to the supreme court’s recent decision in Clark v. State, 579 So.2d 109 (Fla.1991), in which it was held that a trial court may not enhance probation unless a violation of probation has been formally charged and the probationer has been given notice and hearing, we reverse the order modifying appellant’s probation and remand the matter to the trial court.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and RYDER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of sexual battery of and committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of [1252]*1252sixteen over whom he had familial authority. He challenges the trial court’s modification of his probation that imposes a special condition which precludes him from living within a three-quarter’s mile radius of any school for minors. Pursuant to the supreme court’s recent decision in Clark v. State, 579 So.2d 109 (Fla.1991), in which it was held that a trial court may not enhance probation unless a violation of probation has been formally charged and the probationer has been given notice and hearing, we reverse the order modifying appellant’s probation and remand the matter to the trial court.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and RYDER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

582 So. 2d 1251, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7613, 1991 WL 136874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weidmann-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack