From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 1, 1992
601 So. 2d 635 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Opinion

No. 91-00341.

July 1, 1992.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Harry Lee Coe, III, J.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Timothy A. Hickey, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Stephen A. Baker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


The appellant challenges her ten-year habitual felony offender sentence for possession of cocaine in circuit court case number 90-10571. We affirm the judgment and habitual felony offender sentence on the authority of King v. State, 597 So.2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (en banc).

In circuit court case numbers 88-18532, 89-2210, and 89-11320, we strike from the written probation order the notation which states "same terms and conditions." Because the trial court did not orally pronounce at sentencing this special condition of probation, it is invalid. See Williams v. State, 542 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). We note, as the trial court stated at sentencing, that the appellant shall receive credit for all time served.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

LEHAN, C.J., and RYDER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 1, 1992
601 So. 2d 635 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:RHONDA RENAE WILLIAMS A/K/A RHONDA RONAE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jul 1, 1992

Citations

601 So. 2d 635 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Carter v. State

Because the trial court did not pronounce orally this condition of probation at sentencing, we strike this…