HENRY AARON HANN, 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 special conditions of probation must be orally pronounced, while general conditions need not be.
Appellant was convicted of burglary and dealing in stolen property. The written probation order contained special conditions that were not orally pron…
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 Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
Appellant, Henry Aaron Hann, appeals the judgment and sentence entered after his convictions for burglary and dealing in stolen property. We affirm the convictions but remand to the trial court to strike conditions of probation not orally pronounced.
The written probation order outlines a number of conditions of probation. Included in the list are the requirements that appellant not use intoxicants to excess, not visit places where intoxicants are illegally sold, dispensed or used, and submit to random testing for alcohol. The conditions involving the use of intoxicants and random alcohol testing are special conditions of probation and must be orally pronounced. Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Tomlinson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). These two special conditions of probation not orally pronounced must be stricken.
The condition prohibiting appellant from visiting places where certain substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used is not a special condition of probation. This condition is a more precise definition of the general condition prohibiting association with persons engaged in criminal activities and need not be orally pronounced. Tomlinson.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgments but remand to the trial court to strike the probation conditions concerning using intoxicants to excess and random alcohol testing.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hosie v. State, 661 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…re unlawfully sold, dispensed or used is not a special condition of probation. This condition does not need to be orally pronounced because it is a general condition prohibiting association with persons engaged in criminal activities. Hann v. State, 653 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The trial court also erroneously assessed a “cost/fine” of $30.00 without statutory authority. Martin v. State, 640 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We strike this cost without p…
-
Lynwood Taylor v. State, 670 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…4) that portion of condition eighteen requiring appellant to pay for any evaluation or treatment for problems with alcohol or drugs. See State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1996); Roberson v. State, 654 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Hann v. State, 653 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Luby v. State, 648 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Nunez v. State, 633 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Tomlinson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)