RICHARD GELLER, 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 affirmed the conviction but struck a portion of a special probation condition that was not orally pronounced at sentencing.
The defendant was convicted of driving under the influence. A special condition of probation regarding firearm possession was not orally pronounced at…
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 Certified Question Of Great Public Importance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Richard Geller’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating he found no meritorious issue in the judgment and sentence entered in this case. We find no reversible error affecting Geller’s conviction for driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages, a third-degree felony, and affirm.
Our independent review of the record reveals that the trial court imposed a “special condition” of probation without orally pronouncing it at sentencing. This was error. See Zachary v. State, 559 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Condition 4 prohibits the possession or ownership of firearms or weapons without the probation officer’s consent. We affirm condition 4 insofar as-it prohibits Geller, a convicted felon, from owning or possessing a firearm. See § 790.23, Fla.Stat. (1991). We strike the portion of condition 4 implying that a probation officer may. consent to Geller’s possession of a firearm. See Beckner v. State, 604 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We also strike the portion of condition 4 that prohibits the possession or ownership of any weapon because it was not orally pronounced at sentencing.
We affirm the judgment and sentence. We affirm in part and strike in part condition 4.For the reasons stated in Hart v. State, 651 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), we again certify the following question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court:
DOES THE SUPREME COURT’S PROMULGATION OF THE FORM ‘ORDER OF PROBATION’ IN FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.986 CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO PROBATIONS OF CONDITIONS 1-11 SUCH THAT ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THESE CONDITIONS BY THE TRIAL COURT IS UNNECESSARY?
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and BLUE and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1996)…ond v. State, 652 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 660 So. 2d 715 (Fla.1995); Lietz v. State, 652 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Farrington v. State, 654 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 663 So. 2d 631 (Fla.1995); Geller v. State, 651 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 663 So. 2d 631 (Fla.1995); Sheffield v. State, 651 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 663 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1995). .While we recognize that for some purposes an order of probation has not been treated as a senten…
-
Hayes v. State, 665 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…ertified question from the second district in Hart v. State, 651 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 659 So. 2d 1089 (Fla.1995), Emond v. State, 652 So. 2d 419, 420 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 660 So. 2d 715 (Fla.1995), and Geller v. State, 651 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 663 So. 2d 631 (Fla.1995), we will continue to adhere to the general principle that all conditions of probation must be orally pronounced at the time of sentencing unless the conditions are statutorily authorized pursu…
-
State v. Geller, 668 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1996)…OF THE FORM “ORDER OF PROBATION” IN FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.986 CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO PROBATIONERS OF CONDITIONS 1-11 SUCH THAT ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THESE CONDITIONS BY THE TRIAL COURT IS UNNECESSARY? See Geller v. State, 651 So. 2d 192, 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Since we have already answered the identical question in the affirmative in State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1996), we quash the district court decision and remand to th…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Hart v. State, 651 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Zachary v. State, 559 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Beckner v. State, 604 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)