Weinshenker v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Weinshenker v. State

662 So. 2d 770, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 11963, 1995 WL 676122

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 15, 1995

DocketNo. 94-2796

StatusPublished

This text of 662 So. 2d 770 (Weinshenker 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

Weinshenker v. State, 662 So. 2d 770, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 11963, 1995 WL 676122 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s imposition without pronouncement of the probation condition that prohibited appellant from visiting “places where controlled substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used.” See Zeigler v. State, 647 So.2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). However, lack of oral pronouncement requires us to reverse that part of condition k.3 which ordered appellant not to possess, carry or own any weapons without the consent of his probation officer. See Vasquez v. State, 663 So.2d 1343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We remand to the trial court with instructions to correct the probation order consistent herewith.

[771]*771AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

DELL, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s imposition without pronouncement of the probation condition that prohibited appellant from visiting “places where controlled substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used.” See Zeigler v. State, 647 So.2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). However, lack of oral pronouncement requires us to reverse that part of condition k.3 which ordered appellant not to possess, carry or own any weapons without the consent of his probation officer. See Vasquez v. State, 663 So.2d 1343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We remand to the trial court with instructions to correct the probation order consistent herewith.

[771]*771AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

DELL, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

662 So. 2d 770, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 11963, 1995 WL 676122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinshenker-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack