Case ID: so2d_686/html/0603-01.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

Sheldon Theodore LUTZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 95-00724.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    April 12, 1996.
    James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Wayne S. Melnick, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnés, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Sheldon Theodore Lutz, challenges his convictions of trafficking and possession of various controlled substances, possession of paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm by a felon. We find no error in the asserted impermissible admission of evidence, and we affirm the judgments and sentences.

Certain special conditions of probation imposed at sentencing, however, were not orally pronounced and must be stricken. Portions of condition (20) require appellant to submit to and pay for an evaluation to determine whether or not he has a treatable alcohol problem, and to pay for any drug or alcohol treatment program. These are special conditions of probation which must be orally pronounced at sentencing. State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589 (Fla.1996); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.986(e). Since these conditions were not orally pronounced at sentencing they must be stricken.

We, accordingly, strike the improper portions of probation condition (20) discussed above, but affirm the judgments and sentences in all other respects.

. THREADGILL, C.J., and RYDER and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.