RODNEY BROCKLEY, 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.
The court held that a special condition of probation not orally pronounced must be stricken, but conditions that are verbatim quotes from a rule of criminal procedure and affirmed by precedent are valid.
The defendant was convicted of lewd assault and first-degree burglary. He appealed, challenging certain conditions of his probation.…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.986 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Rodney Brockley, appeals his convictions for lewd assault and first degree burglary with assault or battery. We affirm his convictions without comment, but we are compelled to strike one condition of probation.
Condition thirteen requires the defendant to “waive extradition should a violation of supervision occur.” We strike this condition because it is a special condition which was not orally pronounced. See McDaniels v. State, 679 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The defendant asserts that conditions four and twelve must also be stricken for the same reason. We disagree. Conditions four and twelve are verbatim quotes from the form order of probation added to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986. Pursuant to State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1996), we affirm the imposition of these conditions of probation.
We, therefore, strike condition thirteen. Otherwise, we affirm the convictions and sentences.
THREADGILL, C.J., and PATTERSON and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1996)
- McDANIELS v. State, 679 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)