Nunez v. State, 92-04101
| Decision Date | 18 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-04101,92-04101 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D626 Noe NUNEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Kenneth D. Whitfield, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Erica M. Raffel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant, Noe Nunez, pleaded nolo contendere to one count of possession of cocaine and three counts of burglary of a conveyance, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm the denial of this motion, but strike certain conditions of probation.
At sentencing the trial court withheld adjudication of guilt on all convictions and placed Nunez on probation for five years. Nunez challenges three of the probation conditions. We strike special conditions (4) and (6) because they were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing. See Williams v. State, 542 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
Probation condition (9) was not orally pronounced either. That condition, however, which requires the appellant to submit to tests to determine the use of alcohol or controlled substances, is statutorily authorized by section 948.03(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1991). Thus the appellant had constructive notice of this condition. Tillman v. State, 592 So.2d 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Nevertheless, we are unable to uphold the requirement of alcohol testing. The mere use of alcohol is not related to any of the appellant's offenses and nothing in this record indicates it would relate to future criminality. A condition of probation restricting the appellant's use of alcohol could not be legally imposed under the circumstances of this case, Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla.1993); Richardson v. State, 620 So.2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); therefore, testing for the use of alcohol is not warranted. But see Hayes v. State, 585 So.2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 593 So.2d 1052 (Fla.1991). Accordingly, we strike the portion of condition (9) requiring random testing for alcohol.
The convictions and sentences are otherwise affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brock v. State
...review the opinion in Brock v. State, 667 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), which certified conflict with the opinion in Nunez v. State, 633 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. In 1993, appellant Clifton Brock pled no contest to grand theft. The trial ......
-
Fernandez v. State, 95-3004
...to a Biller relevancy analysis. On this issue we note the apparent conflict between the first and second districts. In Nunez v. State, 633 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), the defendant pled nolo contendere to possession of cocaine and burglary of a conveyance. Striking a condition of probati......
-
Brock v. State, 95-1481
...and Hayes v. State, 585 So.2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. den., 593 So.2d 1052 (Fla.1991), but we certify conflict with Nunez v. State, 633 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). As to Issue II, we find reversible error in the imposition of a public defender's lien where the appellant was denied adequ......
-
Taylor v. State, 94-02850
...(Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Hann v. State, 653 So.2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Luby v. State, 648 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Nunez v. State, 633 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., ...