Nelson v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Douchard v. State

    357 So. 3d 142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    He relies on Sandoval v. State, 337 So.3d 5 (Fla 4th DCA 2022), which remanded a probation order to include that term. Id. at 7; see also Nelson v. State, 669 So.2d 1145, 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Nelson pointed out that the general condition of probation in section 948.03(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1995), included the word "knowingly."

  2. Marquis v. State

    339 So. 3d 365 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Although we previously have held the omission of 948.03(1)(n)’s knowledge element in a probation order is not necessarily error, we have remanded suggesting that the trial court amend the condition "to reflect that appellant may not ‘knowingly visit’ such prohibited places." SeeNelson v. State , 669 So. 2d 1145, 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (omitting the word "knowingly" was not error but remanding to amend the condition); Sandoval , 47 Fla. L. Weekly at D442, ––– So.3d at –––– (suggesting upon remand the trial court amend the condition to reflect the defendant may not "knowingly visit" prohibited places). Because we are remanding for the probation order to be amended as to another condition, we similarly suggest that the trial court include the knowledge element in the condition that Appellant not visit the places currently described in Condition 5 of the order under review.

  3. Sandoval v. State

    337 So. 3d 5 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    While reading this provision with the standard probation condition would require the defendant's knowledge, we suggest upon remand the trial court amend the condition to reflect the defendant may not "knowingly visit" such prohibited places. SeeNelson v. State , 669 So. 2d 1145, 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We have reviewed the remaining challenged conditions.