Mastick v. State

Robert MASTICK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 2, 1982.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1982-02-02

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[f]undamental fairness requires that a defendant be placed on notice as to what he [or she] must do or refrain from doing while on probation.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 969 So. 2d 222 - Lawson v. State

Relies on 334 So. 2d 577 - Croteau v. State · 365 So. 2d 1053 - Gardner v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-02-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 2007

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *204 Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Beth C. Weitzner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Alan T. Lipson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before HENDRY, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Where neither the probation order nor transcript of plea proceeding evidenced that, as a condition of probation defendant was to report to the Probation Intake office after completion of a six-month jail term, it was error to find him in violation of probation three (3) years later for failure to report and to impose an additional six-month period of incarceration. An unmarked condition on a standard probation form is not, explicitly or implicitly, part of the agreement between the parties. Croteau v. State,334 So.2d 577 (Fla. 1976). A probation order must sufficiently instruct the probationer as to what he must do or refrain from doing while on probation. Gardner v. State,365 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

¶6Reversed.