BENJAMIN W. BROWN, A/K/A BENJAMIN WILLIAM BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the probation condition 'Stay away from bars' was not unconstitutionally vague and related to rehabilitation and public protection.
Appellant was convicted of uttering forged checks and sentenced to probation. One probation condition required him to 'Stay away from bars.'…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unconstitutional Vagueness cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Benjamin W. Brown appeals from a judgment adjudicating him guilty of three counts of uttering a false, forged, or altered check and concurrent sentences of five years probation on each count.
We have considered appellant’s three points on appeal and find no reversible error demonstrated under any of said points. However, we deem it appropriate to address appellant’s contention in Point Three that one of the conditions of his probation was unconstitutionally vague and unrelated to rehabilitation. Condition Number Nine required appellant to “Stay away from bars.”
The record reflects that appellant has a lengthy history of varied involvement in crime, including association with drug dealers. During prior probationary periods he was often unemployed and was considered to be generally lazy by his probation officer. Apparently, the trial judge felt hanging around bars with the associations often found there was not conducive to appellant’s rehabilitation and to the protection of the public from future criminal activity in which appellant might, as a result, become involved.
A condition of probation should reasonably relate to the offense involved, the rehabilitation of the defendant, or the protection of the public. Dearth v. State, 390 So. 2d 108 (Fla.App.1980). We hold that the condition complained of, which was imposed by the veteran trial judge, fulfills the purposes of probation conditions as set forth in Dearth, supra. It is not unconstitutionally vague. The average person would understand the meaning of the admonition, “Stay away from bars.”
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
LETTS, C. J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 566 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…obation imposed by the trial court. The conditions reasonably relate to appellant’s past criminality, serve a rehabilitative purpose, and, if the rehabilitation is successful, may prevent future criminality. Therefore, we affirm. See Brown v. State, 406 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Wiggins v. State, 386 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Finally, we hold that the trial court erred when it ordered appellant to pay public defender’s fees, court costs and other compensation to various funds or to perform communi…
-
Biller v. State, 604 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…cerning the use or possession of alcohol on the appellant’s probation. Such a condition is appropriate where it may be related to the past or future criminality of the defendant or where it is used as a tool for rehabilitation. E.g., Brown v. State, 406 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Coulson v. State, 342 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Here we do not have the benefit of reviewing the presentence investigation report, which was before the trial court, and we have no information as to its content. However,…
-
Purvis v. State, 442 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…e. However, a condition of probation must reasonably relate to (1) the offense involved, (2) the rehabilitation of the probationer, or (3) the protection of the public. See, e.g., Bodden v. State, 411 So. 2d 1391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Brown v. State, 406 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Rodriguez v. State, 378 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Notwithstanding the trial court’s well-intended purpose for imposing this condition of restitution, it clearly does not fall within any of these three criteria. Accordingly,…
Authorities Cited
- Dearth v. State, 390 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)