Summary
amending condition of probation restricting contact with person under age twenty-one because it was unduly restrictive on contact with adults
Summary of this case from State v. HallOpinion
No. 90-01893.
July 10, 1991. Rehearing Denied July 24, 1991.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Harry Lee Coe, III, J.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John S. Lynch, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Anne Y. Swing, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
The appellant was placed on probation for committing a lewd assault on a child under age sixteen. The trial court revoked his probation, finding that he violated two conditions of probation, one of which required that he have no contact with children under age sixteen without written permission of his probation officer. The appellant was sentenced to a term in prison followed by additional probation with revised conditions.
We agree with the appellant's contention that the court erred in restricting his contact during the probationary period with persons under age twenty-one without written permission. Such a condition unduly restricts the appellant's contacts with adults.
Therefore, we amend that condition of probation to prohibit contact with persons under eighteen years of age. Further, to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement that condition is amended to provide that written permission must come from the probation officer, rather than the court. In all other aspects, we affirm.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and RYDER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.