DAVID A. POUNDS A/K/A DAVID A. POWELL, 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 special condition of probation must be orally pronounced at sentencing and struck the condition that was not.
[1] A special condition of probation requiring evaluation and treatment for substance abuse must be orally pronounced at sentencing.
[2] A probation condition that is not orally pronounced at sentencing must be stricken.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was resentenced after a prior supreme court opinion, receiving convictions for armed robbery and resisting an officer. A special condition o…
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
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, David A. Pounds a/k/a David A. Powell, challenges the judgments and sentences imposed upon him after he was resentenced pursuant to the supreme court’s opinion in Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1992). The appellant was charged with, and found guilty of, armed robbery and resisting an officer without violence, in violation of sections 812.13 and 843.02, Florida Statutes (1989). The appellant was originally declared a habitual offender and sentenced to life imprisonment for the armed robbery conviction and to one year in the county jail for the resisting an officer conviction. At resentencing, he was declared a habitual offender and sentenced to serve twenty-five years in prison followed by ten years probation for the armed robbery conviction and to time served for the resisting an officer conviction. This timely appeal followed.
We affirm the appellant’s convictions and sentences without discussion. We agree, however, with one of the appellant’s three contentions concerning the imposition of conditions of probation.
Condition (20) of the order placing the appellant on probation provides:
You shall submit to and pay for an evaluation to determine whether or not you have any treatable problem with (alcohol) (any illegal drug). If you have said problem, you are to submit to, pay for, and successfully complete any recommended treatment program as a result of said evaluation, all to be completed at the direction of your Supervising Officer. This condition constitutes a special condition of probation which must be orally pronounced at sentencing. Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Crawford v. State, 616 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Contra Navarre v. State, 608 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Since it was not orally pronounced, it must be stricken.
We, accordingly, strike probation condition (20) and affirm the judgments and sentences in all other respects.
Affirmed as modified.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and BLUE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bristol v. State, 667 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…(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 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); (4) condition 8 which requires the appellant to pay for random drug testing, Pounds v. State, 661 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); and (5) condition 6 which requires the appellant to report his “supervision status” to his employer. Condition 6 also requires the appellant to “work faithfully at suitable employment.” This condition must be modified to require…
-
Gipson v. State, 670 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…suitable employment to the best of his ability.” Martin v. State, 659 So. 2d 479, 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Finally, we strike special condition 12 regarding payment for drug testing because it was not orally pronounced at sentencing. Pounds v. State, 661 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Affirmed in part; probation conditions modified; and costs stricken. ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.…
-
Melton v. State, 685 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…am and any recommended aftercare treatment. Since this is a special condition of probation which was not orally pronounced at sentencing, we strike this condition. See Williams v. State, 563 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). See also Pounds v. State, 661 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The appellant also challenges condition (28) of his order of probation/community control which directs him to pay $288 in court costs. Since the trial court did not cite the statutory authority for such cost, we strike this cond…
Authorities Cited
- Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992)
- Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Navarre v. State, 608 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Bruce v. Crawford, 616 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)