Cooper v. State, 94-01088
| Decision Date | 22 September 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-01088,94-01088 |
| Citation | 660 So.2d 811 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D2174 Curtis COOPER, a/k/a Curtis Otis Cooper, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Susan Hartmann, Special Assistant Public Defender, Sarasota, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for appellee.
The appellant, Curtis Cooper, a/k/a Curtis Otis Cooper, challenges the trial court's judgment and sentence which was imposed after a jury found him guilty of robbery, in violation of section 812.13, Florida Statutes (1991). The trial court sentenced the appellant as a habitual offender to fifteen years in prison, followed by two years community control, and followed by eight years probation. This timely appeal followed.
After a review of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm the appellant's conviction without discussion. However, we find that the trial court erred in imposing certain conditions of probation and community control.
We strike that portion of condition (4) of the appellant's order of probation and order of community control which prohibits the carrying of weapons other than those enumerated in section 790.23, Florida Statutes (1991), since it is a special condition of probation that was not orally pronounced at sentencing. Malone v. State, 652 So.2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Furthermore, because the remainder of the condition implies that a felon can possess weapons otherwise prohibited with the consent of his probation officer, that portion is also stricken. Malone, 652 So.2d at 903.
We also strike that portion of condition (7) of the appellant's order of probation and order of community control which provides that "you will not use intoxicants to excess" since it is a special condition of probation which was not orally pronounced at sentencing. Parsons v. State, 650 So.2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). That portion of condition (7) which prohibits the appellant from possessing "any drugs or narcotics unless prescribed by a physician" is also stricken since it is too vague. Parsons, 650 So.2d at 177.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions but strike those portions of conditions (4) and (7) mentioned above.
Affirmed as modified.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State, 96-02641
...2d DCA 1995).2 See Weber v. State, 691 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Levely v. State, 685 So.2d 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Cooper v. State, 660 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Williams v. State, 658 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Hall v. State, 661 So.2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Parsons v. State, 65......
-
Garnier v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 2001-CA-0860.
...of insurance, the provisions of this Section shall control. In Garrett v. Seventh.. Ward General Hospital, 95-0017 (La.9/25/95). 660 So.2d 811, 843, the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that the purpose of La. R.S. 23:1225C(1)(c) and 1225C(4) was the prevention of "duplicative benefits fro......