Wheatley v. State
| Decision Date | 19 November 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-4254,92-4254 |
| Citation | 629 So.2d 896 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2466 Clarence Steven WHEATLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Chris W. Hoeg, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Wendy S. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Clarence Wheatley appeals a final judgment and probation order which, pursuant to his plea of nolo contendere to sale of a controlled substance, adjudicate him guilty of the offense and place him on community control for a period of two years, followed by a three-year period of probation. Wheatley contends that the circuit court erred in imposing three illegal conditions of probation.
We affirm condition # 15 of the probation order, which orders Wheatley to "submit to drug/alcohol evaluation and counseling as directed by your Officer." 1 See Sec. 948.03(1)(j)1, Fla.Stat. (1989); Boudreaux v. State, 578 So.2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Rowland v. State, 548 So.2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
We reverse condition # 14 of the probation order, which orders Wheatley to pay $200 as an additional cost associated with his participation in the Bay County Work Program, because this cost is not statutorily authorized. 2 Martin v. State, 618 So.2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
We also reverse condition # 18 of the probation order, which directs Wheatley to stay away from five specified areas apparently located in Bay County. This written condition fails to conform with the oral pronouncement that Wheatley "stay away from areas in Bay County that are known to be ... high drug use areas, to be defined by your probation officer...." 3 Sumter v. State, 570 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. dismissed, 583 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1991).
Accordingly, the probation and community control orders are reversed and this cause is remanded with directions to strike condition # 14 of the probation order and condition # 19 of the community control order, and to reconsider condition # 18 of probation and condition # 24 of community control.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
1 Condition # 20 of the community control order also imposes this requirement.
2 Condition # 19 of the community control order also imposes this requirement.
3 Condition # 24 of the community control order also imposes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Starr Tyme, Inc. v. Cohen
...nolo contendere), review denied, 659 So.2d 272 (Fla.1995); Doyle v. State, 644 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (same); Wheatley v. State, 629 So.2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (same). A "final judgment" is not exempt from the plain language of the estoppel statute simply because it was entered pu......
-
Edwards v. State, 94-379
...as an additional cost associated with appellant's participation in the Bay County Work Program must be stricken. See Wheatley v. State, 629 So.2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Blanchette v. State, 620 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Martin v. State, 618 So.2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). See also Tho......
-
Carter v. State
...This Court rejected the claim that the condition vested unbridled discretion in the probation officer. Accord Wheatley v. State, 629 So.2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (upholding condition which ordered defendant to "submit to drug/alcohol evaluation and counseling as directed by your Officer");......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...plea of nolo contendere), rev. denied , 659 So.2d 272 (Fla. 1995); Doyle v. State, 644 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Wheatley v. State , 629 So.2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). A “final judgment” is not exempt from the plain language of the estoppel statute simply because it was entered pursuan......