Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

764 So. 2d 576

764 So.2d 576

25 Fla.L.WeeklySupp. 597

Rider v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided July 13, 2000

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 2000-07-13

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 2008

2 state decisions

Relies on 760 So. 2d 89 - Maddox v. State · 405 So. 2d 418 - Jollie v. State · 750 So. 2d 592 - Wood v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2000-07-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We have for review Rider v. State, 724 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal citing as authority its opinion in Maddox v. State, 708 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), approved in part, disapproved in part, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981). Rider contends that a condition of probation imposed by the trial court is overly broad. For the reasons expressed in our opinion in Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 105 n. 11 (Fla.2000), we approve the decision of the Fifth District that this type of sentencing error must be preserved in order to be raised on direct appeal.1

¶2It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

¶3. We decline to address the other issues raised by Rider that are not the basis of our jurisdiction. See, e.g., Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592, 595 n. 3 (Fla.1999); McMullen v. State, 714 So.2d 368, 373 (Fla.1998).

/764/so2d/576 · .json · Public domain