From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crowley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 19, 2002
813 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Opinion

No. 2D01-737.

April 19, 2002.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hills-borough County; Florence Foster, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Dale E. Tarpley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


Mary Catherine Crowley appeals following the revocation and reimposition of probation. She argues, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred by imposing special conditions of probation that were not orally announced. Accordingly, we reverse. On remand, the trial court shall limit the payment requirement in conditions thirteen and fourteen to urinalysis testing only, which was orally announced. See State v. Williams, 712 So.2d 762 (Fla. 1998) (holding that payment requirement was special condition requiring oral pronouncement). The trial court shall strike special condition fifteen, which prohibits Crowley from consuming alcoholic beverages or visiting places where the main source of income comes from alcohol sales. See Murphy v. State, 704 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

Reversed.

FULMER and GREEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Crowley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 19, 2002
813 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
Case details for

Crowley v. State

Case Details

Full title:MARY CATHERINE CROWLEY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Apr 19, 2002

Citations

813 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

Lavender v. State

We also receded from cases "in which we struck unpronounced conditions even though the appellant was able to…

Ladson v. State

See State v. Williams, 712 So.2d 762, 763 (Fla. 1998). Such conditions have previously been stricken when…