LARRY MITCHELL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1991-12-20
No. 91-00680
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and SCHEB and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
590 So. 2d 549 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1991) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER Cl/EHAM.

PER Cl/EHAM.

Appellant challenges special conditions nine through sixteen, eighteen and nineteen of the probationary portion of the sentence he received when he pled guilty to violations of his original probation. The written order of probation imposed the same terms and conditions of his original probationary term, which was revoked in this case. Only one of the special conditions, however, was orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing on the probation revocation. We therefore strike the special conditions referenced above, because the court did not pronounce them at sentencing. See Williams v. State, 542 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The sentence is affirmed in all other respects.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and SCHEB and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Olvey v. State, 609 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
    …t correctly contends that many of the conditions of his probation must be reversed because they were not orally pronounced at sentencing as required by precedent from this court. Tillman v. State, 592 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 2d DCA1992); Mitchell v. State, 590 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 2d DCA1991); Williams v. State, 542 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Williams v. State, 525 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA1988). See also Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.700. He makes this challenge without regard to any actual knowledge of the special conditions whic…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw