JAMES ROBERT BRISTOL, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed defendant's methamphetamine trafficking conviction but struck or modified several probation conditions that were imposed without oral pronouncement at sentencing.
Special conditions of probation must be orally pronounced at sentencing, and conditions imposing collateral restrictions or requiring impossible performance must be struck or modified.
[1] Special conditions of probation imposed by a trial court must be orally pronounced at sentencing to be enforceable.
Previewing 1 of 1 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 erred in imposing special conditions of probation without orally pronouncing them at sentencing”
Court's statement of the legal error requiring reversal of certain probation conditions
James Robert Bristol was convicted of trafficking in methamphetamine and sentenced to probation with multiple special conditions, including restrictio…
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 Oral Pronouncement Of Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
The appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for trafficking in methamphetamine. We find no error as to the appellant’s conviction and, therefore, affirm. However, we agree with the appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in imposing special conditions 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 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 the appellant to “work faithfully at suitable employment insofar as may be possible.” Burke v. State, 642 So. 2d 677, 678 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s judgment and sentence and remand to the trial court to modify the written order of probation in accordance with this opinion.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Devell Hawkins v. State, 693 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…to require Mr. Hawkins to work faithfully “insofar as may be possible.” § 948.03(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (1993). We also strike the portion of that condition which requires Mr. Hawkins to report his “supervision status” to his employer. Bristol v. State, 667 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Finally, we strike the portion of condition 8 requiring Mr. Hawkins to pay for random drug and alcohol testing because it is a special condition that must be orally announced at sentencing. Malone v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2…
-
Holmes v. State, 675 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…did not orally order evaluation for alcohol use. Accordingly, we strike the portions of conditions 18 and 20 relating to alcohol, and the portions of conditions 8 and 20 requiring Holmes to pay for evaluation, treatment or testing. Bristol v. State, 667 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We affirm the portion of condition 8 requiring Holmes to submit to random alcohol testing because section 948.03(l)(j)l., Florida Statutes (1993), provides notice of its imposition. See Malone v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DC…
-
Washington v. State, 686 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…eport to your employer your supervision status.” We uphold that condition of probation but, on remand, order the trial court to insert the phrase “insofar as may be possible.” See Godley v. State, 659 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Bristol v. State, 667 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We strike those portions of probation conditions (8) and (20) requiring Washington to pay for testing and treatment for alcohol or controlled substances because they are special conditions which were not pronounced orahy. See Ja…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tomlinson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Bunch v. Hon. Carl Markel, 642 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- George v. State, 624 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Holmes v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 624 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Dolphis A. Hamilton v. State, 653 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Laster v. State, 658 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Pounds v. State, 661 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)