Bledsoe v. State, 94-2288
| Decision Date | 07 July 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-2288,94-2288 |
| Citation | 657 So.2d 1235 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1580 Ervin BLEDSOE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Dan D. Hallenberg, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Timothy D. Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Ervin Bledsoe appeals four orders entered by the trial court placing him on community control and probation after he pled guilty to a violation of probation. Bledsoe objects to two special conditions imposed by the court's orders. The first special condition required that Bledsoe not use intoxicants to excess or visit places where intoxicants, drugs, or other dangerous substances were unlawfully used or sold. Bledsoe contends that this condition must be stricken because it is not reasonably related to his rehabilitation. The second special condition required that Bledsoe work at a lawful occupation and support his family to the best of his ability. Bledsoe argues that this condition should be modified to require him to seek lawful employment. He also asks that this court correct a scrivener's error in the orders. We affirm the imposition of the conditions of community control and probation but correct the scrivener's error.
Bledsoe originally entered pleas to four felony offenses and was sentenced in 1989 to nine years in the Department of Corrections, to be followed by six years of probation. The trial court's order placing Bledsoe on probation listed 14 "general" and several special conditions. One of the general conditions provided:
10) Unless prohibited from consuming alcoholic beverages by a special condition elsewhere in this order, you will not consume alcoholic beverages to the extent that your normal faculties are impaired.
Bledsoe did not object to any of the conditions.
Bledsoe served three and one-half years in the DOC and was released to serve his probation. On 2 August 1994, the DOC filed an affidavit of violation of probation, alleging that Bledsoe violated a special condition of probation when he did not attend mental health counseling. Bledsoe subsequently entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the violation of probation.
On 23 September 1994, pursuant to the plea agreement, Bledsoe was sentenced to two years community control followed by three years probation. At sentencing, the trial court stated that "[a]ll the same terms and conditions which were previously applicable will continue to be applicable." Bledsoe did not object to any of the conditions. Later, the trial court entered four orders placing Bledsoe on community control and probation. The orders contained, among others, the following conditions:
(6) You will not use intoxicants to excess; nor will you visit places where intoxicants, drugs or other dangerous substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used.
(7) You will work diligently at a lawful occupation and support any dependents to the best of your ability, as directed by your Community Control Officer.
Bledsoe argues that portions of condition number 6 of his community control orders, as well as condition 10 of his original probation order, should be stricken because they are special conditions which are not reasonably related to his rehabilitation. Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla.1993). He specifically complains about the prohibition against using intoxicants to excess. We hold that Bledsoe waived his right to challenge these conditions by failing to object to their imposition. Because the conditions are not illegal or "so egregious as to be the equivalent of fundamental error", Bledsoe was required to object to preserve his right to appeal. Larson v. State, 572 So.2d 1368, 1371 (Fla.1991).
The purpose of requiring the trial court to orally pronounce special conditions of probation is to notify the defendant of the conditions so the defendant has an opportunity to object to their imposition. Nank v. State, 646 So.2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Cleveland v. State, 617 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). In this case, Bledsoe received a written copy of the conditions at his sentencing in 1989, and he was orally told that the same conditions would apply at his sentencing in 1994....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClendon v. State, 94-2571
...734 (Fla.1993). The problem with this objection is that McClendon failed to make it at his sentencing hearing. See Bledsoe v. State, 657 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Watson v. State, 641 So.2d 432 (Fla. 5th 1994); Grasso v. State, 639 So.2d 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Devine v. State, 636 S......