Legal Opinion

Bailey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 12, 1996No. 95-4703PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the appellant’s conviction and sentence for sale of marijuana. We remand for the trial court to make the follow*1359ing corrections to the order of probation. First, that portion of Condition (12) of the probation order that requires the appellant to pay for random drug testing is stricken because it was not orally pronounced and is not included in the standard conditions of probation. E.g., Kirkland v. State, 666 So.2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA1996). We also strike the special condition of probation ordering that the appellant, though pronounced indigent, would nonetheless be responsible for…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bradshaw v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
  2. Kirkland v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
  3. Brock v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
  4. Davis v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
  5. Klug v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Sculley v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1998
  2. Miller v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API