Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

673 So. 2d 569

Royals v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1996-05-22

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 2005

2 state decisions

Relies on 668 So. 2d 589 - State v. Hart · 635 So. 2d 1051 - Shacraha v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-05-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The appellant challenges three special conditions of community control and probation which were not orally pronounced at sentencing. Based on State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589 (Fla.1996), we affirm as to condition six which provides that appellant will not use intoxicants to excess nor visit places where intoxicants, drugs or other dangerous substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used. We reverse conditions twelve and thirteen which were not orally pronounced and are not standard conditions of community control or probation. Shacraha v. State, 635 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

¶2Affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions to eliminate conditions twelve and thirteen from the order of community control.

GUNTHER, C.J., and WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
/673/so2d/569 · .json · Public domain