TROY TREMAINE, 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 affirmed the judgment and sentence for aggravated battery but struck certain portions of the sentence and conditions of probation.
Troy Tremaine appealed his judgment and sentence for aggravated battery, arguing the trial court erred in ordering his sentence to run consecutive to …
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 Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
Troy Tremaine appeals from his judgment and sentence for aggravated battery. We affirm the judgment and sentence, but strike certain portions of the sentence and conditions of probation.
Tremaine correctly argues that the trial court erred when it ordered his sentence for aggravated battery to run consecutive to any sentence to be imposed in a case pending in Ohio. See Pattmon v. State, 404 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Keel v. State, 321 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Hummell v. State, 693 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). We, therefore, strike that portion of his sentence. We also strike probation condition 14 which states, “[t]his sentence consecutive to any VOP or conditional release from incarceration in Ohio.” See Drew v. State, 478 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
Finally, we strike that portion of condition 12 which requires Tremaine to pay for substance evaluation. See Diaz v. State, 691 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Affirmed and remanded with instructions to the trial court to correct the sentence and probation order in accordance with this opinion.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reggie Farrior v. State, 707 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…ondling a child under sixteen years of age. We affirm the judgment and sentence, but strike that portion of probation condition (12) requiring Farrior to pay for drug testing because it was not pronounced orally at sentencing. See Tremaine v. State, 698 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We do not strike probation condition (4) because it did not require oral pronouncement. See Houston v. State, 701 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Drew v. State, 478 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Diaz v. State, 691 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Kubalski v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 321 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Keel v. State, 321 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Hummell v. State, 693 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Lenwood Pattmon v. State, 404 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)