Legal Opinion

Shell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 19, 1996No. 94-04573PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. See Revels v. State, 666 So.2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We must strike, however, two conditions of probation that were not orally announced. Nank v. State, 646 So.2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Although we affirm that portion of condition eight which requires appellant to submit to testing for alcohol or controlled substances because it is a duplication of a general condition of probation outlined in section 948.03(l)(j)l., Florida Statutes (1993), we strike the additional language requiring appellant to pay for such…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Reyes v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995
  2. Nank v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
  3. Revels v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995
  4. Luby v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995
  5. Daughtery v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Rider v. Pool Offshore Co.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API