From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carroll v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 3, 1991
578 So. 2d 868 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Opinion

No. 89-03250.

May 3, 1991.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Harry Lee Coe, III, J.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Andrea Norgard, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


In this case, appellant challenges several special conditions of probation. Condition 11 requires that appellant not visit bars, restaurants or any places serving alcoholic beverages without permission from his probation officer. Condition 21 requires that he not be within three blocks of known high drug areas as determined by his probation officer. We strike these conditions on the authority of Edmunds v. State, 559 So.2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) and Huff v. State, 554 So.2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). We otherwise affirm.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Carroll v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 3, 1991
578 So. 2d 868 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
Case details for

Carroll v. State

Case Details

Full title:WILLARD LEE CARROLL, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: May 3, 1991

Citations

578 So. 2d 868 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Citing Cases

Strong v. State

Condition (10) requires that Appellant not visit bars, restaurants, or any place where alcoholic beverages…