SUSAN L. GERSTENBERGER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Oral Pronouncement Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
Susan L. Gerstenberger challenges the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress and the imposition of certain conditions of probation. We affirm on the suppression issue since the officers complied with the knock and announce requirements of section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1993). We reverse and strike the portion of probation condition eighteen concerning alcohol.
To the extent that condition eighteen prohibits possessing and consuming alcohol, prohibits frequenting places where alcohol is the main source of business and prohibits associating with persons who consume alcohol, it is a special condition of probation which was not orally pronounced at sentencing and is hereby stricken. Roberson v. State, 654 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Sheffield v. State, 651 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Additionally, this condition is not related to the crimes of possession of cannabis and possession of methamphetamine. Richardson v. State, 620 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyd v. State, 749 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…sion of alcohol, or associating with persons who consume alcohol, or frequenting places where alcohol is the main source of business. Those prohibitions are unrelated to the offense of solicitation or delivery of cocaine. See Gerstenberger v. State, 667 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Richardson v. State, 620 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Therefore, we strike the alcohol portions of the condition. Condition 20 requires Boyd to submit to and pay for an evaluation to deter [*537] mine whether he has a treatab…
-
Ramirez v. State, 847 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…tion had been well taken. “It is incumbent upon the defense to make a showing, through appropriate witnesses, that the tattoos were present at the time of the crime.” Kulick v. State, 614 So. 2d 672, 673 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); see also Miller v. State, 667 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Out of the presence of the jury, the court ruled that the State would be allowed to comment in closing argument regarding the absence of a predicate showing that the defendant had the tattoos on the date of the charged crime. Th…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 620 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Roberson v. State, 654 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Sheffield v. State, 651 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)