ROBERT S. HAYES, 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 reversed the probation revocation because the condition prohibiting use of intoxicants to excess was not orally pronounced at sentencing and was not reasonably related to rehabilitation or the underlying offense.
A probation condition must be orally pronounced at sentencing unless statutorily authorized or based on a statute providing constructive notice, and a condition against using intoxicants to excess is invalid as not reasonably related to rehabilitation.
[1] A probation condition must be orally pronounced at the time of sentencing unless the condition is statutorily authorized pursuant to section 948.03, Florida Statutes, or…
[2] A probation condition prohibiting use of intoxicants to excess is not reasonably related to rehabilitation and does not relate to the underlying offense or commission of…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHayes was placed on probation with a condition that he not use intoxicants to excess, and his probation was revoked based on violation of this conditi…
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 Sentencing Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
As we recently stated in Vasquez v. State, 663 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), until the supreme court rules on the certified question from the second district in Hart v. State, 651 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 659 So. 2d 1089 (Fla.1995), Emond v. State, 652 So. 2d 419, 420 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 660 So. 2d 715 (Fla.1995), and Geller v. State, 651 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 663 So. 2d 631 (Fla.1995), we will continue to adhere to the general principle that all conditions of probation must be orally pronounced at the time of sentencing unless the conditions are statutorily authorized pursuant to section 948.03, Florida Statutes (1993), or are otherwise based on a Florida Statute which will provide the defendant with constructive notice. Additionally, the condition that appellant not use intoxicants to excess was not reasonably related to rehabilitation and did not relate to the underlying offense or to the commission of future crimes. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order revoking appellant’s probation based on an invalid condition and remand with instructions to the trial court to strike that portion of the condition which states: “You will not use intoxicants to excess.”
REVERSE AND REMAND.
GLICKSTEIN and KLEIN, JJ., and ANGELOS, CYNTHIA G., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hart v. State, 651 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Vasquez v. State, 663 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Rafe Emond v. State, 652 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Geller v. State, 651 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)