Turchario v. State, 91-04070
| Decision Date | 26 March 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-04070,91-04070 |
| Citation | 616 So.2d 539 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D822 Alfred TURCHARIO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and D.P. Chanco, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Alfred Turchario appeals from a written order imposing a new period of probation, which was entered upon a violation of probation. He charges that the trial court erred in imposing the following special conditions which were not orally pronounced at sentence:
11) [You will] visit no bars, restaurants, or any place where alcoholic beverages are served without written permission from the Probation Officer, after consent from Judge.
16) [You] will not use intoxicants of any kind to excess....
17) [You] must testify truthfully if witness to Civil or Criminal Offense.
19) You will notify your Probation/Community Control Officer on the first working day following your arrest for any crime.
20) You will at all times, show respect to your Probation or Community Control Officer....
21) You are not to be within three (3) blocks of known high drug areas as determined by your Probation or Community Control Officer.
22) You will under go [sic] drug and/or alcohol treatment has [sic] Probation or Community Control Officer deems necessary.
These special conditions had been imposed initially, and upon a prior violation. However, at the time of the sentencing on this violation the trial court did not announce that it was imposing the same conditions as before. Mr. Turchario's attorney "certainly had no basis or need to suggest to the trial court that the prior special conditions be reimposed." Olvey v. State, 609 So.2d 640, 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). There was therefore no need for the defendant to object to the special conditions. Id. at 643.
We therefore reverse the written order of probation on the basis of Olvey, and Williams v. State, 542 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), which hold that the trial court cannot impose special conditions of probation in the written order which were not orally pronounced at sentencing. We remand for correction to allow only those conditions orally pronounced at sentencing or those allowed by statute. We note, however, that in this case had the trial court stated at sentencing it was imposing the same conditions as before, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Justice v. State, 94-501
...e.g., Bartlett v. State, 638 So.2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Christobal v. State, 598 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Turchario v. State, 616 So.2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The lower court is not free at a resentencing to simply add the previously unannounced conditions. As I understand our pr......
-
Justice v. State, 86264
...191 (Fla.1996); Nank v. State, 646 So.2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Peterson v. State, 645 So.2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Turchario v. State, 616 So.2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Tillman v. State, 592 So.2d 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Fourth District: see, e.g., Vasquez v. State, 663 So.2d 1343 (Fla. 4......
-
Burdo v. State, 94-2553
...contra, Vasquez v. State, 663 So.2d 1343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Bartlett v. State, 638 So.2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Turchario v. State, 616 So.2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Christobal v. State, 598 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Lastly, we strike the imposition of prosecution and investigative......
-
Sheffield v. State, 93-01818
...written probation order is not statutorily authorized, and thus must be orally pronounced at sentencing to be valid. Turchario v. State, 616 So.2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Olvey v. State, 609 So.2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); see generally Nank v. State, 646 So.2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Since t......