JAMES E. LASTER, 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 not orally pronounced at sentencing must be stricken if they expand beyond the oral pronouncement. However, conditions that merely clarify or define a general prohibition need not be orally pronounced.
Appellant was convicted of numerous felonies and sentenced to probation. He appealed several special conditions of probation 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 Special Conditions Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
James E. Laster appeals numerous felony convictions and sentences. He challenges three special conditions of probation that were not orally pronounced at sentencing. We agree that portions of two conditions must be stricken but otherwise affirm.
Probation condition (3) states: “You will not possess, carry or own any weapons, firearms, or destructive devices.” We affirm the portion of condition 3 which prohibits the ownership or possession of a firearm, but we strike the portion that refers to other weapons and destructive devices. See Fitts v. State, 649 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Probation condition (5) states: “You will not use intoxicants to excess. You will not visit places where intoxicants, drugs or other dangerous substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed, or used.” We strike the portion relating to excessive use of intoxicants, but affirm the remainder as a more precise definition of a general prohibition that need not be orally pronounced. See Tomlinson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Judgments and sentences affirmed; specified probation conditions stricken.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bristol v. State, 667 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ditions of probation without orally pronouncing them at sentencing. George v. State, 624 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Thus, we strike: (1) the portion of condition 3 which forbids the appellant from carrying “destructive devices,” Laster v. State, 658 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); (2) condition 5 which prohibits the use of intoxicants to excess, Tomlinson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); (3) the portions of conditions 8, 18, and 20 which relate to the use of alcohol, Hamilton v. State, 653 So. 2d…
-
Holmes v. State, 675 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ndition, because they are general conditions of probation that need not be orally pronounced. State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1996). We strike the portion of condition 3, the weapons condition, that refers to destructive devices. Luster v. State, 658 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The rest of condition 3 is affirmed as a general condition. Hart. At the sentencing hearing, the lower court ordered that Holmes be evaluated for drug use and be subject to random drug testing, but it did not state that he was re…
-
Weekfall v. State, 686 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…, firearms, or destructive devices.” That portion prohibiting Weekfall from possessing, carrying, or owning destructive devices must be struck because it was not pronounced orally. Holmes v. State, 675 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Laster v. State, 658 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Probation condition (6) states: “You will work faithfully at suitable employment. You will report to your employer your supervision status.” This condition is part of condition (8) contained in the general conditions section in…
Authorities Cited
- Tomlinson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Fitts v. State, 649 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)