Huff v. State, 88-03502
| Decision Date | 22 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-03502,88-03502 |
| Citation | 554 So.2d 616 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D106 Thomas Jeffrey HUFF, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Stephen Krosschell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Candance M. Sunderland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant, Thomas Jeffrey Huff, challenges two conditions of probation and a finding of violation of his previous probation based on one of these conditions. We strike the illegal conditions and the finding of violation of one of these conditions.
On August 15, 1988, Appellant was sentenced to five years probation for burglary of a dwelling. One of the conditions of probation imposed was that he could not live with a member of the opposite sex who was not his relative. On November 30, 1988, Appellant pleaded guilty to violating five conditions of probation including living with a member of the opposite sex who was a not relative. The trial court revoked his probation and sentenced him to nine years in prison followed by six years probation. The trial court reimposed the condition of probation that Appellant not live with a member of the opposite sex who was not his relative. Another condition imposed was that he not be within three blocks of a known "high drug area" as determined by his probation officer. Neither of these conditions was announced at the sentencing hearing.
The condition that Appellant not live with a member of the opposite sex has been held to be invalid because it relates to noncriminal conduct. See Brodus v. State, 449 So.2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Wilkinson v. State, 388 So.2d 1322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
We find that the condition that Appellant not be within three blocks of a "high drug area" as defined by his probation officer is too vague to advise Appellant of the limits of his restrictions and can be easily violated unintentionally. The validity of this condition may depend on whether or not the probation officer apprised Appellant of which areas he was to avoid prior to a violation. Since the conditions were not announced at sentencing, there is nothing in the record to suggest that these areas were defined specifically or in writing. See Almond v. State, 350 So.2d 810, 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson-Shaw Co. v. Jacksonville Aviation Auth.
... ... It is a political subdivision of the state of Florida, 2004 Fla. Laws 464, § 14, and it has responsibility for the planning, management and ... ...
-
State v. Allen
...scrutiny; court made no effort to tailor scope of marital association restriction to specific circumstances of case); Huff v. State, 554 So.2d 616 (Fla.App. 2 Dist.1989) (condition of probation that defendant not live with member of opposite sex was invalid as not relating to defendant's cr......
-
Hughes v. State, 95-0822
...Hughes not come within 250 miles of the victim is not nearly as specific as that in Larson. It is more akin to those in Huff v. State, 554 So.2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), and Almond v. State, 350 So.2d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 128 (1978). In Huff, the court struck a co......
-
Alvarez v. State, 90-03220
...or illegal drugs. Invalid as to alcohol; too vague and capable of unintentional violation as to illegal drugs under Huff v. State, 554 So.2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). (5) Frequent places where alcohol is the main source of business or illegal drugs are used. Invalid again as to alcohol; as to......