Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

658 So. 2d 1129

Laster v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1995-07-28

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1996

3 state decisions

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

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-07-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BLUE, Judge.

¶1James E. Laster appeals numerous felony convictions and sentences. He challenges three special conditions of probation that were not orally pronounced at sentencing. We agree that portions of two conditions must be stricken but otherwise affirm.

¶2Probation condition (3) states: “You will not possess, carry or own any weapons, firearms, or destructive devices.” We affirm the portion of condition 3 which prohibits the ownership or possession of a firearm, but we strike the portion that refers to other weapons and destructive devices. See Fitts v. State, 649 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

¶3Probation condition (5) states: “You will not use intoxicants to excess. You will *1130not visit places where intoxicants, drugs or other dangerous substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed, or used.” We strike the portion relating to excessive use of intoxicants, but affirm the remainder as a more precise definition of a general prohibition that need not be orally pronounced. See Tomlinson v. State, 645 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

¶4Judgments and sentences affirmed; specified probation conditions stricken.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.
/658/so2d/1129 · .json · Public domain