Parsons v. State, 93-00617

Decision Date08 February 1995
Docket NumberNo. 93-00617,93-00617
Citation650 So.2d 176
Parties20 Fla. L. Weekly D396 Douglas E. PARSONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Douglas A. Wallace, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kimberly D. Nolen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of second degree murder for the killing of his wife's boss. He challenges his conviction on the grounds of improper prosecutorial comments. He also challenges the special conditions of probation imposed, the restitution ordered and the jury instructions given.

Appellant maintains that the prosecutor's comments during voir dire and closing were impermissible comments on appellant's right to remain silent. We disagree. The prosecutor's comments may not be fairly construed as such. See Sgroi v. State, 634 So.2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). His comments during voir dire were merely pointing out that the jury's job was to evaluate the evidence, and the attorneys' job was to present the evidence. His other comments were permissible comments on the evidence presented.

Appellant maintains that the court improperly ordered him to pay restitution as a condition of probation without setting the amount. However, a review of the record reveals that the court merely reserved the right to later determine the amount of restitution if the parties could not agree and stipulate to an amount. The court specifically ordered that the hearing be held within the sixty-day period mandated by Rule 3.800(b). Appellant may still challenge the amount when it is determined.

Appellant challenges two conditions of his probation on the grounds that they were special conditions that were not orally pronounced at sentencing and, as such, must be stricken. We agree in part.

Appellant challenges conditions four and seven, which provide:

(4) You will not possess, carry or own any firearm. You will not possess, carry or own any weapons without first procuring the consent of your officer.

....

(7) You will not use intoxicants to excess or possess any drugs or narcotics unless prescribed by a physician. Nor will you visit places where intoxicants, drugs or other dangerous substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used.

We consider condition four first. This court has held that since felons may not possess firearms, that portion of the condition is a valid general condition and need not be pronounced at sentencing. Thus, the first sentence of condition four is valid as a general condition of probation that need not be pronounced at sentencing and may be allowed to stand. However, since there is no similar statutory prohibition as to possession of weapons, we conclude that this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Johnson v. State, 96-02641
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 24, 1997
    ...whether it is "impermissibly vague." Garrison v. State, 685 So.2d 53, 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). 3 This court first held in Parsons v. State, 650 So.2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), that condition seven was vague. Parsons involved an offense that occurred prior to 1993. The language used in condition......
  • McClendon v. State, 94-2571
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1995
    ...hearing. See Evans v. State, 653 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Malone v. State, 652 So.2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Parsons v. State, 650 So.2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Fitts v. State, 649 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Grate v. State, 623 So.2d 591 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Accordingly, this condi......
  • Williams v. State, 95-01051
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 11, 1996
    ...pronounced at sentencing, prohibiting him from possessing drugs or narcotics unless prescribed by a physician. In Parsons v. State, 650 So.2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), this court struck that portion of condition (7) as too vague because it could be interpreted to prohibit a probationer from p......
  • Garrison v. State, 95-02180
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 13, 1996
    ...of drugs or narcotics unless prescribed by a physician must be stricken because it is impermissibly vague. Parsons v. State, 650 So.2d 176, 177-78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The phrase "or possess any drugs or narcotics unless prescribed by a physician" should be We affirm condition (o), which req......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT