A.B.C., A CHILD, 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.
Affirmed juvenile's community control sentence with curfew condition, holding that general statutory conditions of community control need not be orally pronounced at adjudication, but certified conflict with Fourth District's contrary approach.
General statutory conditions of community control, including a curfew, need not be orally pronounced at the adjudicatory hearing to be valid when included in the written order.
[1] General statutory conditions of community control, including curfews, need not be orally pronounced at adjudication to be enforceable when included in the written sentenc…
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“general statutory conditions of probation place a defendant on constructive notice and, thus, do not have to be orally pronounced prior to entry of written order, whereas special statutory conditions, i.e., those 'not statutorily authorized,' must be orally pronounced”
Court's application of Hart standard distinguishing general from special conditions
A juvenile was adjudicated and sentenced to community control with a 7:00 P.M. curfew condition that was included in the written order but was neither…
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 Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
MICKLE, Judge.
The appellant, a juvenile, appeals an order imposing community control and including, as a condition thereof, a 7:00 P.M. curfew. Specifically, he challenges the inclusion of the curfew in the written order when neither a curfew nor curfew time was orally pronounced at the adjudicatory hearing. We affirm and certify a conflict. §§ 39.053(2) & 39.054(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1994) (including “a curfew” as a penalty component of community control); Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.947; State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589, 592 (Fla.1996) (general statutory conditions of probation place a defendant on constructive notice and, thus, do not have to be orally pronounced prior to entry of written order, whereas special statutory conditions, i.e., those “not statutorily authorized,” must be orally pronounced); Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762, 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We certify conflict with S.W. v. State, 666 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (striking condition of juvenile’s community control requiring 60 hours of community service because that general condition was not orally pronounced, even though community service is an allowable condition listed in the above-cited statutes), which, we note in fairness to our sister court, was decided prior to the supreme court’s decision in Hart.
AFFIRMED.
MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.B.C. v. State, 682 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1996)…PER CURIAM. We have for review the opinion in A.B.C. v. State, 673 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), which certified conflict with the opinion in S.W. v. State, 666 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla.Const. The petitioner, a juvenile, appealed a trial court order imposing a 7 p.m. curf…
-
Dublin v. State, 681 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…ice to Dublin to file an amended motion pursuant to rule 3.850, which conforms to the requirements of that rule. See Groves v. State, 668 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Burns v. State, 651 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). See also McClain v. State, 673 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Caldwell v. State, 659 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Gentry. AFFIRMED; REMANDED without prejudice to defendant to refile amended rule 3.850 motion. COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . See, e.g., Brown v. State, 664 So. 2d 311…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1996)
- Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- S.W. v. State, 666 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Taylor v. Lasley, 666 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)