Almond v. State, 75-1604
| Citation | 350 So.2d 810 |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1604,75-1604 |
| Parties | Steven Harris ALMOND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Frank B. Kessler and Jerry L. Schwarz, Asst. Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Harry M. Hipler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant appeals from a Judgment of guilty and Order of Probation after a trial by jury in which Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault.
The trial court ordered Appellant to serve seven years of probation and included in the terms thereof the following conditions:
"(9) You will serve fifty-one weeks in Orange County Jail with credit for time served.
(10) You will reside elsewhere other than Central Florida.
(11) You will not violate any State or Federal laws, County or Municipal Ordinances.
(12) You will not associate with any organized or unorganized motorcycle groups."
The terms of probation exceeds the maximum allowed by two years. See Holmes v. State, 343 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), and Heatherly v. State, 343 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Additionally, Appellant contends and we agree that condition (10) is improper. The requirement that Appellant reside elsewhere than Central Florida is not sufficiently definite to advise Appellant of the limits of the restriction; also it is not clear what relationship this restriction has to Appellant's probation. The trial court in the exercise of its discretion may as a condition of probation say where a probationer may reside. The condition, however, must be sufficiently definite to advise the probationer of the limits of the restriction, and the condition must also bear some reasonable relationship to the purposes of probation. Condition (10) does not meet these criteria and is hereby stricken from the Order of Probation. Upon remand, the trial court may amend the Order of Probation consistent with this opinion. In all other respects the Judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED as modified and remanded.
I disagree with that portion of this opinion which infers that the conditions as set forth in the Order of Probation must affirmatively show some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Charlton
...courts have routinely invalidated this condition. See, e.g., Henry v. State, 276 S.C. 515, 280 S.E.2d 536 (1981); Almond v. State, 350 So.2d 810 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977). But see Cobb v. State, 437 So.2d 1218 (Miss.1983). Some courts have justified this on the ground that general banishment c......
-
Shaddix v. State
...clarification on remand so Shaddix will know exactly what he must do or refrain from doing while on probation. See Almond v. State, 350 So.2d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. den., 358 So.2d 128 (Fla.1978). The amount of restitution, if any, must be determined by the trial court pursuant to s......
-
Bentley v. State, 80-898
...law.2 See, e.g., Grubbs v. State, 373 So.2d 905 (Fla.1979).3 Dearth v. State, 390 So.2d 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).4 See Almond v. State, 350 So.2d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Coulson v. State, 342 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Russell v. State, 342 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Kominskey v.......
-
Gaal v. State
...the probation order can sufficiently instruct Gaal as to what he must do or refrain from doing while on probation. See Almond v. State, 350 So.2d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. den., 358 So.2d 128 (Fla.1978); Mastick v. State, 409 So.2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA After the oral pronouncement of proba......