SHELDON T. LUTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Special Conditions Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence. We strike, however, those portions of condition 18 of the order of probation forbidding appellant from frequenting places where alcohol is the main source of business and associating with persons who use alcohol, because those are special conditions of probation which were not orally pronounced at sentencing. See Ringling v. State, 678 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). As to condition 20, we strike the words “pay for” in regard to evaluation and the words “pay for” in regard to treatment for the same reason. See Luby v. State, 648 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Affirmed as modified.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and BLUE and LAZZARA JJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fisher v. State, 697 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…enter places that serve alcohol and that he pay for the random drug and alcohol testing are stricken, since the trial court did not announce these conditions orally, as is required in State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1996). See also Lutz v. State, 682 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). On remand, the trial court may not reimpose the special conditions we have stricken here. See Justice v. State, 674 So. 2d 123 (Fla.1996). The trial court may reimpose the stricken costs or fines if it identifies the nature of…
-
Yunger v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 707 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…appealed to this court. We held that the appeal was premature because, in fact, the trial court had ruled upon Federal’s motion to dismiss and the Yunger’s 1.540 motion had not been set for hearing. Yunger v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, 682 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). On remand a hearing was held. Through their attorney, the Yungers agreed with Federal to stipulate they were not challenging the summary judgment on its merits but only the sales process and notice. Based on that stipulation ma…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Luby v. State, 648 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Ringling v. State, 678 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)