Lambert v. State

Bonnie LAMBERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 2, 1994.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1994-03-02

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1999

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“have no contact with children under age 10”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 736 So. 2d 72 - Matthews v. State

Relies on Daniels v. State · Dean v. State · Baker v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-03-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Jane D. Fishman, Plantation, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Carol Cobourn Asbury, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We affirm appellant's convictions, but reverse two conditions of probation. We reverse the condition that appellant use no alcohol because this condition is not reasonably related to the offenses or defendant's rehabilitation. See Baker v. State,609 So.2d 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Daniels v. State,*94583 So.2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We reverse the condition that defendant have no contact with children under age 10 because this condition is too broad. It must be more specific so that the defendant cannot be charged with an unintentional violation of it. See Dean v. State,629 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

¶5WARNER, KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.