State v. Sheffield

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided February 22, 1996

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1996-02-22

Relies on 668 So. 2d 589 - State v. Hart · 651 So. 2d 160 - Sheffield v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-02-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably 756 So. 2d 42 - Peart v. State (2000), Major v. State (2002)

67 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We have for review a decision of the Second District Court of Appeal passing upon a question certified to be of great public importance:

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 1-11 SUCH THAT ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THESE CONDITIONS BY THE TRIAL COURT IS UNNECESSARY?

¶2See Sheffield v. State, 651 So.2d 160, 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Since we have already answered the identical question in the affirmative in State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589 (Fla.1996), we quash the district court decision and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with Hart.

¶3It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.