Case ID: so2d_581/html/0250-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William M. VOGT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 90-01778.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 26, 1991.
    James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

As to the first issue, we affirm on the basis of Quarterman v. State, 527 So.2d 1380 (Fla.1988) and Smith v. State, 529 So.2d 1106 (Fla.1988). As to the second issue, we affirm special condition 27 of Mr. Vogt’s probation, as it reasonably relates to the crimes for which he was convicted and is not unreasonably vague or restrictive, given the facts of this case. Conversely, we strike special condition 6 because it has no reasonable relation to Mr. Vogt’s offenses or his rehabilitation.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and FRANK and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.