DAVID A. RUDNICKI, 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 a probation condition prohibiting firearm possession is improper if the defendant is not a convicted felon, and oral pronouncement of special conditions is important.
Rudnicki pleaded no contest and received probation, which included a condition prohibiting firearm and weapon possession without probation officer con…
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 Possession Of A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Chief Judge.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of Rud-nicki’s motion to suppress. We must, however, strike one of the conditions of probation, imposed following the entry of his no contest plea.
The written order’s condition number four provides that Rudnicki is not to “possess, carry or own any firearm,” and that he is not to “possess, carry, or own any weapons without first procuring the consent” of his probation officer. Although in some instances we have affirmed the condition prohibiting the defendant from possessing a firearm, see Emond v. State, 652 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Jennings v. State, 645 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Hart v. State, 651 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), the record before us does not indicate that Rudnicki is a convicted felon. Were Rudnicki a convicted felon, it would be improper for his probation officer to consent to his possession of a firearm.
This situation highlights the potential confusion inherent in a trial court’s failure to pronounce orally special conditions of probation. Accordingly, condition number four must be stricken. Gilbert v. State, 647 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
RYDER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hart v. State, 651 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Rafe Emond v. State, 652 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Jennings v. State, 645 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Gilbert v. State, 647 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)