THOMAS FARRINGTON, A/K/A THOMAS JACKSON, 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.
Thomas Farrington appealed the revocation of his community control and the conditions of probation imposed in two separate cases. The appellate court affirmed the revocation and sentence but struck several improperly imposed or unannounced probation conditions, and certified to the Florida Supreme Court a question regarding whether oral pronouncement of standard probation conditions is necessary.
The court affirmed the revocation of community control and the sentence as within statutory and guidelines parameters. However, the court struck multiple probation conditions: the portion of condition 4 implying a felon may possess a firearm with probation officer permission, the general weapons prohibition in condition 4 (not orally pronounced), the portion of condition 6 prohibiting excess alcohol use, and the entirety of condition 12 prohibiting alcohol consumption and visits to establishments selling alcohol (neither orally pronounced).
[1] A convicted felon may not possess a firearm, even with the permission of a probation officer.
[2] A court may strike a condition of probation that was not orally pronounced at sentencing.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“As a convicted felon the appellant may not possess a firearm regardless of whether his probation officer has so consented.”
Establishes that felon firearm restrictions cannot be waived by probation officer permission.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFarrington had his community control revoked in Circuit Court Case No. 88-9963 and received a sentence within statutory guidelines. In a separate case…
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 Notice Of Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and the appellant has not filed any pro se supplemental brief. In accordance with our duty under In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla.1991), we have carefully reviewed the record and find that the appellant’s community control was properly re voked and the sentence imposed for Circuit Court Case No. 88-9963 was within the statutory and guidelines parameters. Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1992).
However, we note a problem with several of the special conditions of probation imposed in Circuit Court Case No. 89-582. Accordingly, we strike that portion of condition number 4 which improperly implies that a convicted felon may possess a firearm with his probation officer’s permission. Fitts v. State, 649 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Beckner v. State, 604 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). As a convicted felon the appellant may not possess a firearm regardless of whether his probation officer has so consented. § 790.23, Fla.Stat. (1991); Fitts. We strike the general prohibition of possessing, carrying or owning any weapons, as opposed to firearms, in condition number 4 since this provision was not orally pronounced at sentencing. Id. We also strike that portion of condition number 6 which prohibits the appellant from using alcohol to excess and the entirety of condition number 12 which prohibits the appellant from consuming any alcoholic beverages, or visiting business where the main source of income is the sale of alcoholic beverages because these special conditions were also not pronounced at sentencing. See Tomlinson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); see generally, Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). As in Hart v. State, 651 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), we certify the following question as one of great importance:
DOES THE SUPREME COURT’S PROMULGATION 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?
Affirmed as modified.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and FULMER, JJ., concur. ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Upon consideration of the appellee’s motion for rehearing filed on March 21,1995, we grant the motion for rehearing and we amend the prior opinion in this case, filed March 3, 1995, to add the following language at the end of the penultimate paragraph of the opinion:
As in Hart v. State, 651 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), we certify the following question as one of great importance:
DANAHY, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur. SCHOONOVER, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1996)…all v. State, 652 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 663 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1995); Emond 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…
-
State v. Farrington, 668 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1996)…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? [*599] See Farrington v. State, 654 So. 2d 564, 565 (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, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S77 (Fla. Feb. 22, 1996), we quash the district court decision…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- In re App. Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991)
- Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1992)
- Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Tomlinson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Hart v. State, 651 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Fitts v. State, 649 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Beckner v. State, 604 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)