Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

633 So. 2d 1136

Dunbar v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1994-03-16

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1999

4 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-03-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The appellant, Yancy Lamar Dunbar, challenges the judgment and sentence imposed upon him after he was adjudicated guilty of third degree murder. We affirm the conviction and sentence except for certain probation conditions which we strike.

¶2We find no reversible error in the issues appellant raises concerning the conviction of third degree murder, and accordingly, we affirm.

¶3The appellant raises multiple sentencing errors but we find error only in the imposition of two of the conditions of appellant’s probation. Probation condition (6) which forbids appellant from using intoxicants to excess and visiting places where these are unlawfully used or dispensed was improperly imposed because it was not announced in open court. Tillman v. State, 592 So.2d. 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Likewise, probation condition (4) which forbids appellant from possessing weapons and firearms without first obtaining permission from his probation officer was improperly imposed for the same reason. See Tillman. We strike probation conditions (4) and (6).

¶4Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.
/633/so2d/1136 · .json · Public domain