SHELDON THEODORE LUTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Special Conditions Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Sheldon Theodore Lutz, challenges his convictions of trafficking and possession of various controlled substances, possession of paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm by a felon. We find no error in the asserted impermissible admission of evidence, and we affirm the judgments and sentences.
Certain special conditions of probation imposed at sentencing, however, were not orally pronounced and must be stricken. Portions of condition (20) require appellant to submit to and pay for an evaluation to determine whether or not he has a treatable alcohol problem, and to pay for any drug or alcohol treatment program. These are special conditions of probation which must be orally pronounced at sentencing. State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1996); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.986(e). Since these conditions were not orally pronounced at sentencing they must be stricken.
We, accordingly, strike the improper portions of probation condition (20) discussed above, but affirm the judgments and sentences in all other respects.
. THREADGILL, C.J., and RYDER and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Guzman, 697 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ate, 691 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), applies notwithstanding that the motion follows alleged discovery violations by the state. Moore v. State, 697 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); State v. Harrill, 679 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Zyla v. Cohen, 686 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Stridiron v. State, 672 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State v. Guzman, 667 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Colby v. McNeill, 595 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), review denied, 604 So. 2d 487 (Fla.1992); State v. Brown, 527 So. 2d…
-
Garrett v. State, 87 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…te v. Bowers, 1 So. 3d 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (defendant requested a continuance before trial); Malmsberry v. State, 819 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (the defense delayed disclosure of witnesses until seventeen days before trial); Zyla v. Cohen, 686 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (defense counsel waited until five days before the trial date to make a document request); and Ehn v. Smith, 426 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (substitute counsel was appointed seven weeks prior to trial).…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1996)