Crowley v. State, 2D01-737.
| Decision Date | 19 April 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D01-737.,2D01-737. |
| Citation | 813 So.2d 1065 |
| Parties | Mary Catherine CROWLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
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)
(). 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- COQUINA BEACH CLUB CONDOMINIUM v. Wagner, 2D01-3430.
-
Lavender v. State
...of probation.2 We specifically receded from these cases by name: Martinez v. State, 841 So.2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), Crowley v. State, 813 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), and Miller v. State, 809 So.2d 101 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).3 In asserting that remand was required for the trial court to str......
- TERRI VAN WINKLE, PA v. Johnston, 1D01-1324.