STEVEN G. PETERSON, 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.
Peterson appeals a probation condition prohibiting use of cannabis sativa and undefined "dangerous substances." The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirms his conviction and sentence but remands to strike the vague prohibition on dangerous substances, which was unrelated to his crime and not orally pronounced by the trial judge.
The court holds that the second part of the special condition prohibiting dangerous substances is invalid and must be struck because: (1) it is not related to or connected with the crime for which Peterson was convicted, (2) it is vague as "dangerous substances" are not defined, and (3) the trial court did not orally pronounce this condition, which constitutes error since oral conditions prevail over inconsistent written conditions.
[1] A condition of probation that is not related to the crime for which the defendant was convicted and sentenced is invalid.
[2] A condition of probation is invalid if it is vague and undefined.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The second part of the special condition is not related to or connected with the crime for which Peterson was convicted and sentenced. It is also vague, since "dangerous substances" are not defined.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for striking the dangerous substances prohibition as unrelated to the crime and impermissibly vague.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeterson entered a plea of nolo contendere to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to five years of probation with special condit…
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 Oral Pronouncement Of Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Steven Peterson (“Peterson”) appeals a condition of his probation that was not announced in open court. Peterson entered a plea of nolo contendere to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Peterson was sentenced to five years of probation with special conditions. One of the written special conditions the trial judge imposed dealt with a controlled substance, cannabis sativa, and “dangerous substances”:
The defendant shall not use cannabis sati-va. The defendant shall not use other dangerous substances unless prescribed by a physician for defendant.
This special condition of probation has two parts: the prohibition against cannabis sativa and the prohibition against “dangerous substances”. Although the first part of the special condition is duplicative of condition (5) of the standard conditions of proba tion,1 it is a specific statement that Peterson not violate a state law. The second part of the special condition is not related to or connected with the crime for which Peterson was convicted and sentenced. It is also vague, since “dangerous substances” are not defined. There is nothing in the record suggesting the condition is related in any manner to the crime. Since the condition is not related to the crime, it is stricken. Biller v. State, 618 So. 2d 734 (Fla.1993). The trial court also did not orally pronounce this condition of probation. This omission was error because oral conditions of probation prevail over inconsistent written conditions of probation. Anderson v. State, 616 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
We affirm the conviction and the sentence imposed, except we remand to the trial court to delete the second part of the special condition written above.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; REMANDED for deletion of second part of the special condition of probation.
HARRIS, C.J., and PETERSON, J., concur. . Condition (5) reads: "You will live and remain at liberty without violating any law. A conviction in a court of law shall not be necessary in order for such a violation to constitute a violation of your probation.” Use of cannabis sativa is a violation of sections 893.13(l)(a) and 893.-13(l)(g) Florida Statutes (1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cassamassima v. State, 657 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…ine. We struck the condition that he consume no alcoholic beverages as being not related to this offense because, although the offense was a drug offense, the drug was not alcohol. Gomez-Rodriqueq, 632 So. 2d at 710. Similarly, in Peterson v. State, 623 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), we struck the special condition that the appellant not use other dangerous substances because the term was vague and not related to the crime for which the appellant was placed on probation, i.e. aggravated assault with a deadly…
Authorities Cited
- Biller v. State, 618 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1993)
- Anderson v. State, 616 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)