Devine v. State, 93-2594
| Decision Date | 29 April 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-2594,93-2594 |
| Citation | 636 So.2d 179 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D954 Robert M. DEVINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Robert M. Devine was placed on probation for dealing in stolen property in 1992. In 1993 he violated the terms of that probation by driving under the influence of alcohol.
When the trial court conducted the hearing for the violation of probation, the DUI proceedings had been completed in another court. The trial court revoked probation, continued to withhold adjudication on the original charge of dealing, and imposed a new three-year period of probation with the special conditions that 90 days be served in jail and that he undergo substance abuse offender supervision. Devine was required to abstain from the consumption of intoxicants and from visiting establishments whose primary purpose is the sale or consumption of intoxicants, and submit to random urinalysis.
Devine argues for the first time on appeal that the conditions of probation that relate to substance abuse should be deleted since they do not relate to the original offense of dealing in stolen property. In order to contest conditions of probation on appeal, a defendant must preserve the issue by objecting at the time the conditions are imposed unless the conditions are illegal or so egregious as to be the equivalent of fundamental error. Larson v. State, 572 So.2d 1368, 1370-71 (Fla.1991); Bayer v. State, 597 So.2d 870, 872 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Conditions limiting the consumption of alcohol or requiring substance abuse screening are not the type of conditions which may be appealed in the absence of a contemporaneous objection. See Boudreaux v. State, 578 So.2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Because Devine failed to timely object to the conditions, we affirm the terms imposed.
We also believe that, while the substance abuse conditions may not be related to the dealing in stolen property charge for which the original term of probation was imposed, the imposition of those conditions is reasonably related to preventing future criminality. Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla.1993). The violation involved substance abuse and rehabilitation may be more likely if Devine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClendon v. State, 94-2571
...5th DCA 1995); Watson v. State, 641 So.2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Grasso v. State, 639 So.2d 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Devine v. State, 636 So.2d 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Nor do we see that the condition relating to alcohol announced at the sentencing hearing is materially different than th......
-
Bowden v. State Of Fla.
...CF 2997 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct., June 17, 2009), these rulings are affirmed. Biller v. State, 618 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1993); Devine v. Sate, 636 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Case number 2007 CF 002997 is remanded for entry of the corrected judgment and sentence as a result of the trial court's ru......
-
Holmes v. State
...as to be the equivalent of fundamental error or are illegal. Larson v. State, 572 So.2d 1368, 1370-71 (Fla.1991); Devine v. State, 636 So.2d 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Watson v. State, 641 So.2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Sweet v. State, 644 So.2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The prosecution costs ......
-
Steward v. State, 95-2378
...instant case, the conditions complained of are neither illegal nor does their imposition constitute fundamental error. Devine v. State, 636 So.2d 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). STONE, SHAHOOD, JJ., and RAMIREZ, JUAN, Jr., Associate Judge, 1 We also note that nothing in the record supports the con......