RANDALL SCOTT HOWARD, 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 special conditions of probation not orally pronounced must be stricken from the written order.
Appellant was convicted of lewd fondling of a child and sentenced to probation. The probation order contained special conditions regarding drug/alcoho…
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 Special Conditions Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Randall Scott Howard appeals the judgment adjudicating him guilty of three counts of handling or fondling a child under sixteen in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner. We affirm the judgment and sentences without comment. The state concedes that two conditions of probation must be stricken.
Howard’s probation order includes a special condition requiring him to undergo a drug/alcohol evaluation and to seek treatment if it is deemed necessary. This special condition was not orally pronounced; therefore, it must be stricken. Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The probation order further requires Howard to pay for the costs of drug/alcohol testing. This too is a special condition of probation that must be stricken because it was not orally pronounced. McDaniels v. State, 679 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
The judgment and sentences are affirmed. This ease is remanded with directions to strike the above-referenced special conditions from the written probation order. Pursuant to Johns v. State, 582 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), Howard need not be present for the striking of these conditions.
PARKER, C.J., and FULMER and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (32 total)
-
Selma Gross v. Lyons, 763 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2000)…recused. . A “preponderance” of the evidence is defined as “the greater weight of the evidence,” Black’s Law Dictionary 1201 (7th ed.1999), or evidence that "more likely than not” tends to prove a certain proposition. American Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So. 2d 1249, 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (quoting Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987)).…
-
First Union Nat'l Bank v. Turney, 824 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…Oh March 9, 1999, we denied the petition for writ of certiorari per curiam without opinion. Initial Shomng Waived Because of First Union’s waiver, the procedure followed below differs from the procedure described in American Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So. 2d 1249, 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), under which a party-seeking to defeat a claim of attorney-client privilege on crime-fraud grounds must first put on a prima facie case that the crime-fraud exception applies. Under American Tobacco, the moving party must m…1 / 2
-
Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ntial communications between a lawyer and client, as well as third persons to whom disclosure is in furtherance of the rendition of legal services and those reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication.”); Am. Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So. 2d 1249, 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“The attorney-client privilege is the oldest confidential communications privilege known in the common law.”). The dissent would hold that the discovery order at issue merely allows discovery on a relevant issue that can…
Previewing 3 of 32 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- McDANIELS v. State, 679 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Johns v. State, 582 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- State v. Fraser, 582 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)