Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

652 So. 2d 1197

Docket No. 93-03519.

Hall v. State

James L. HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 29, 1995.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1995-03-29

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1996

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“DOES THE SUPREME COURT’S PROMULGATION OP THE FORM “ORDER OF PROBATION” IN FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.986 CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO PROBATIONERS OF CONDITIONS 1-11 SUCH THAT ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THESE CONDITIONS BY THE TRIAL COURT IS UNNECESSARY?”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 668 So. 2d 600 - State v. Hall

“You will not use intoxicants to excess or possess any drugs or narcotics unless prescribed by a physician. Nor will you visit places where intoxicants, drugs or other dangerous substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 658 So. 2d 1058 - Brown v. State

Relies on 645 So. 2d 1 - Tomlinson v. State · Hart v. State · Fitts v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-03-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Joseph F. Bohren II, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Anne Y. Swing, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

¶3CAMPBELL, Judge.

¶4Appellant, having pled nolo to attempted first degree murder with a firearm, challenges the restitution he was ordered to pay, the public defender fees he was ordered to pay, and several conditions of his probation. We find error only in the imposition of certain of the probation conditions.

¶5Appellant argues that conditions four and six should be stricken. Condition four provides: "You will neither possess, carry or own any weapons or firearms." Condition six provides: "You will not use intoxicants to excess; nor will you visit places where intoxicants, drugs or other dangerous substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used."

¶6Appellant contends that these conditions must be stricken because they were not orally pronounced at sentencing. We will consider them singly.

¶7In conformance with other pronouncements of this court, we affirm that portion of condition four that prohibits appellant from possessing, carrying or owning any firearms. See Stark v. State,650 So.2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Hart v. State,651 So.2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Fitts v. State,649 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Also following the dictates of those cases, we strike the reference to weapons contained in condition four. We further certify the following question of great public importance that was certified in Hart:

DOES THE SUPREME COURT'S PROMULGATION OF THE FORM "ORDER OF PROBATION" IN FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.986 CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO PROBATIONERS OF CONDITIONS *1198 1-11 SUCH THAT ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THESE CONDITIONS BY THE TRIAL COURT IS UNNECESSARY?

¶8Turning to condition six, in accord with Hart and Tomlinson v. State,645 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), we strike that portion of condition six that prohibits the excessive use of intoxicants because it was not orally pronounced at sentencing. We affirm the remainder of condition six as a more precise definition of a general condition that need not be orally pronounced. Tomlinson.

¶9Affirmed in part, portions of probation conditions stricken, and question certified.

¶10DANAHY, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.

/652/so2d/1197 · .json · Public domain