PAUL A. ROBERSON, 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.
Roberson appealed his convictions and sentences. The court affirmed his convictions and sentences but struck several improperly imposed probation and community control conditions that were either not orally pronounced at sentencing or lacked statutory authority.
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences but struck several conditions: (1) the portion of the firearm condition implying officer consent and all weapon-related portions; (2) the excessive intoxicants portion not orally pronounced; (3) mandatory evaluation and treatment program conditions; (4) the daily activity log condition; and (5) the $12 payment to First Step, Inc., for lack of statutory authority.
[1] A special condition of probation or community control must be orally pronounced at sentencing to be enforceable.
[2] A condition prohibiting firearm possession is enforceable even if the probation officer's consent to possession is improperly included, as the prohibition itself was oral…
Previewing 2 of 6 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 trial court improperly imposed four special conditions without announcing these conditions at sentencing.”
Establishes the primary error reviewed—failure to orally pronounce special probation/community control conditions at sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaul A. Roberson was convicted and sentenced to probation and community control with multiple special conditions. The trial court imposed four special…
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 Community Control Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Appellate counsel for the defendant, Paul A. Roberson, filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). After an independent review of the record and the law, we see no error affecting his convictions and sentences and therefore affirm. However, we strike certain conditions of probation and community control.
The trial court improperly imposed four special conditions without announcing these conditions at sentencing. First, we affirm the portion of condition four of the probation order and the community control order which prohibits ownership or possession of a firearm, but we strike that portion which implies that the defendant’s probation or community control officer may consent to possession of a firearm. See Lietz v. State, 652 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Fitts v. State, 649 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We also strike the part of condition four relating only to weapons. Id.
Second, we strike the portion of condition six of the probation order and the community control order relating to excessive use of intoxicants because it was not orally pronounced at sentencing. Id. We affirm the remaining part of the condition because it is a more precise definition of a general prohibition that does not need to be orally pronounced at sentencing. Id.
Third, we strike condition 13 of the probation order and condition 18 of the community control order, which require the defendant to submit at his own expense to evaluation and treatment programs, because the trial court did not announce this special condition. See Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Fourth, we strike condition 12 of the community control order which requires the defendant to maintain an hourly accounting of all activities in a daily log because the trial court failed to announce this special condition. See Vinyard v. State, 586 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
Finally, we strike condition 9 of the probation order and condition 14 of the community control order, which require the defendant to pay twelve dollars to First Step, Inc., because the trial court provided no statutory authority for imposing this cost. See Nank, 646 So. 2d 762.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences, as modified by this opinion.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delegge v. State, 687 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ribed in section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1995). James v. State, 662 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We strike that portion of condition four which suggests that a probation officer may permit a convicted felon to carry a firearm. Roberson v. State, 654 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). For lack of oral pronouncement, we strike condition nine requiring a $12.00 payment to the First Step Program and that portion of condition ten requiring Delegge to pay the costs of any substance evaluation and treatment. Id. at…
-
Miller v. State, 679 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ons; strike that portion of condition six relating to the excessive use of intoxicants; strike that portion of condition thirteen that requires the defendant to pay for random testing; and strike conditions twelve and fifteen. See Roberson v. State, 654 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Daughtery v. State, 654 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Luby v. State, 648 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We also strike condition eighteen because it is vague and impermissibly delegates judicial authority to the defendant’s pro…1 / 2
-
Gerstenberger v. State, 667 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…equenting places where alcohol is the main source of business and prohibits associating with persons who consume alcohol, it is a special condition of probation which was not orally pronounced at sentencing and is hereby stricken. Roberson v. State, 654 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Sheffield v. State, 651 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Additionally, this condition is not related to the crimes of possession of cannabis and possession of methamphetamine. Richardson v. State, 620 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Fitts v. State, 649 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Vinyard v. State, 586 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Edmond Francis Lietz v. State, 652 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)