660 So. 2d 711
660 So.2d 711
20 Fla.L.WeeklySupp. 481
Decided September 21, 1995
Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1995-09-21
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently November 2008 · most notably 668 So. 2d 589 - State v. Hart (1996), 697 So. 2d 944 - State v. Frazier (1997)
44 state decisions
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“conditions of probation not set out in the general conditions portion of the rules need be specifically pronounced at sentencing. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative, quash that portion of the district court decision that struck general probation conditions found in the order of probation form but not announced at sentencing, and remand for proceedings consistent herewith. It is so ordered. GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] This provision forbids a convicted felon”
quoted by 1 later decision, including 668 So. 2d 589 - State v. Hart
Relies on 658 So. 2d 518 - Globe Newspaper Co. v. King
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1995-09-21
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1We have for review an order of the First District Court of Appeal denying petitioners’ petition for writ of certiorari, in which the district court addressed the same question we recently answered in Globe Newspaper Company v. King, 658 So.2d 518 (Fla.1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
¶2In accordance with our decision in Globe Newspaper, we approve the order of the district court in the instant case.
¶3It is so ordered.