Case ID: so2d_581/html/0654-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samuel O’NEAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 90-00538.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 5, 1991.
    James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Stephen Krosschell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Marc E. Brandes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges special conditions eleven and eighteen of his probation. We find that the trial court correctly imposed condition eighteen, but strike condition eleven because there was no oral pronouncement of this condition by the trial court at the plea and sentencing hearing. Williams v. State, 542 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). In all other aspects, we affirm.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and RYDER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.