From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Laster v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 28, 1995
658 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Opinion

No. 94-02031.

July 28, 1995.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Polk County, Dennis Maloney, J.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Kenneth D. Whitfield, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Patricia J. Hakes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


James E. Laster appeals numerous felony convictions and sentences. He challenges three special conditions of probation that were not orally pronounced at sentencing. We agree that portions of two conditions must be stricken but otherwise affirm.

Probation condition (3) states: "You will not possess, carry or own any weapons, firearms, or destructive devices." We affirm the portion of condition 3 which prohibits the ownership or possession of a firearm, but we strike the portion that refers to other weapons and destructive devices. See Fitts v. State, 649 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Probation condition (5) states: "You will not use intoxicants to excess. You will not visit places where intoxicants, drugs or other dangerous substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed, or used." We strike the portion relating to excessive use of intoxicants, but affirm the remainder as a more precise definition of a general prohibition that need not be orally pronounced. See Tomlinson v. State, 645 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Judgments and sentences affirmed; specified probation conditions stricken.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.


Summaries of

Laster v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 28, 1995
658 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Case details for

Laster v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES E. LASTER, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jul 28, 1995

Citations

658 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Citing Cases

Weekfall v. State

That portion prohibiting Weekfall from possessing, carrying, or owning destructive devices must be struck…

Holmes v. State

We strike the portion of condition 3, the weapons condition, that refers to destructive devices. Laster v.…