NICHOLAS MITSAKOS, 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.
Appellate court affirmed conviction for obtaining property with a worthless check but struck three probation conditions requiring abstinence from alcohol and substance abuse counseling as invalid because they lacked evidentiary support and were unrelated to the crime.
Trial court erred in imposing probation conditions requiring abstinence from alcohol, avoidance of bars, and substance abuse counseling without findings supporting their necessity and where such conditions were unrelated to the crime of conviction.
[1] Probation conditions must be supported by trial court findings and must relate to the crime of conviction or criminal activity; conditions requiring abstinence from alcoh…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNicholas Mitsakos was convicted of obtaining property with a worthless check and sentenced to probation with five special conditions, including requir…
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 Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
In this appeal from a judgment and sentence for obtaining property with a worthless check, Nicholas Mitsakos raises three issues. We find merit only in the issue that the trial court imposed invalid conditions of probation.
Mr. Mitsakos challenges all five conditions; however, we hold that only the first three conditions are invalid. Those conditions require Mr. Mitsakos to (1) refrain from the consumption of any alcoholic beverage; (2) not to visit any bars, taverns, or any establishment whose primary business is the sale of intoxicants to the public; and (3) at the direction of his probation officer, submit himself for substance abuse counseling and treatment at his own expense. The trial court did not make any findings supporting the imposition of these conditions. These conditions are unrelated to the crime for which Mr. Mitsakos was convicted, and none of these conditions relate to criminal activity. See Rodriguez v. State, 378 So. 2d 7 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). We therefore hold that the trial court erred by imposing these three conditions of probation. See Edmunds v. State, 559 So. 2d 415 (Fla.2d DCA 1990). The remaining conditions are valid.
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence, but strike special conditions of probation one through three.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zeigler v. State, 647 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…to prohibit criminal conduct. Further, we find nothing in the record to support the imposition of this condition as being related to the crimes for which defendant was convicted or reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation. Mitsakos v. State, 579 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); see also Biller, Rodriguez. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. GLICKSTEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. . Murder in the second-degree is a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years…
Authorities Cited
- Rodriguez v. State, 378 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Edmunds v. State, 559 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)