Case ID: so2d_668/html/0599-01.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

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Rafe EMOND, Respondent.
    No. 85419.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Feb. 22, 1996.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chief of Criminal Law and Johnny T. Salgado, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Petitioner.
    James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and John T. Kilcrease, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

We have for review a decision of the Second District Court of Appeal passing upon the following question certified to be of great public importance:

DOES THE SUPREME COURT’S PROMULGATION OF THE FORM “ORDER OF PROBATION” IN FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.986 CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO PROBATIONERS OF CONDITIONS 1-11 SUCH THAT ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THESE CONDITIONS BY THE TRIAL COURT IS UNNECESSARY?

See Emond v. State, 652 So.2d 419, 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Since we have already answered the identical question in the affirmative in State v. Hart, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S77 (Fla. Feb. 22, 1996), we quash the district court decision and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with Hart.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.