From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Emond

Supreme Court of Florida
Feb 22, 1996
668 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1996)

Opinion

No. 85419.

February 22, 1996.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance, Second District — No. 93-04060, Sarasota County.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chief of Criminal Law and Johnny T. Salgado, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Petitioner.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and John T. Kilcrease, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, for Respondent.


We have for review a decision of the Second District Court of Appeal passing upon the following question certified to be of great public importance:

DOES THE SUPREME COURT'S PROMULGATION OF THE FORM "ORDER OF PROBATION" IN FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.986 CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO PROBATIONERS OF CONDITIONS 1-11 SUCH THAT ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THESE CONDITIONS BY THE TRIAL COURT IS UNNECESSARY?

See Emond v. State, 652 So.2d 419, 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3 (b)(4), Fla. Const. Since we have already answered the identical question in the affirmative in State v. Hart, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S77 (Fla. Feb. 22, 1996), we quash the district court decision and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with Hart.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Emond

Supreme Court of Florida
Feb 22, 1996
668 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1996)
Case details for

State v. Emond

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER, v. RAFE EMOND, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Feb 22, 1996

Citations

668 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1996)