From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Malone v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Mar 22, 1995
652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Summary

In Malone v. State, 652 So.2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), we approved the first sentence of the 1993 condition four, but struck "the portion of the condition that prohibits the carrying of weapons other than those enumerated in section 790.23," because it was an unannounced special condition.

Summary of this case from Houston v. State

Opinion

No. 94-00095.

March 22, 1995.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Donald C. Evans, J.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Julia Diaz, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Dale E. Tarpley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


William Norman Malone, Jr., appeals his judgment and sentence for grand theft. We affirm the judgment and sentence, but strike certain probation conditions because they were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing.

The appellant challenges probation condition four which states: "You will not possess, carry or own any firearms. You will not possess, carry, or own any weapons without first procuring the consent of your officer." The first sentence of this condition is a valid general condition under section 790.23, Florida Statutes (1991). Fitts v. State, 649 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The portion of the condition that prohibits the carrying of weapons other than those enumerated in section 790.23, was not orally pronounced at sentencing and is stricken. 20 Fla. L. Weekly D238. Further, because the remainder of the condition implies that a felon can possess weapons otherwise prohibited with the consent of his probation officer, that portion is stricken.

The appellant next challenges the portion of condition seven that states, "[y]ou will not use intoxicants to excess," on the ground it was not orally pronounced at sentencing. This is a special condition which must be orally pronounced. See Tomlinson v. State, 645 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Because it was not orally pronounced in this case, it is stricken.

Finally, the appellant challenges the portion of condition ten that requires him to submit to random alcohol testing. Condition ten is a general condition set forth in section 948.03(1)(j)1, Florida Statutes (1991), and may be imposed in any case without being orally pronounced. Tillman v. State, 592 So.2d 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The additional requirement that the appellant pay for the testing is not, however, included in the statute. Because the portion of the condition that requires the appellant to pay for testing was not orally pronounced, it is stricken. See Catholic v. State, 632 So.2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

Affirmed; probation conditions stricken.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and FULMER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Malone v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Mar 22, 1995
652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

In Malone v. State, 652 So.2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), we approved the first sentence of the 1993 condition four, but struck "the portion of the condition that prohibits the carrying of weapons other than those enumerated in section 790.23," because it was an unannounced special condition.

Summary of this case from Houston v. State
Case details for

Malone v. State

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM N. MALONE, JR. APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Mar 22, 1995

Citations

652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. State

In the event resentencing is unnecessary, we strike the following conditions of probation because they were…

Williams v. State

This court has held that requiring a defendant to pay for either alcohol or drug testing is a special…