Legal Opinion

Rudnicki v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 7, 1995No. 94-02617Published

1Opinion of the Court

FRANK, Chief Judge.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of Rud-nicki’s motion to suppress. We must, however, strike one of the conditions of probation, imposed following the entry of his no contest plea.

The written order’s condition number four provides that Rudnicki is not to “possess, carry or own any firearm,” and that he is not to “possess, carry, or own any weapons without first procuring the consent” of his probation officer. Although in some instances we have affirmed the condition prohibiting the defendant from possessing a firearm, see Emond v. State, 652 So.2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995);…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hart v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995
  2. Emond v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995
  3. Jennings v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
  4. Gilbert v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API