Case Name: Robert LESPERANCE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-04-29
Citations: 708 So. 2d 1038
Docket Number: No. 96-2591
Parties: Robert LESPERANCE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before JORGENSON, GODERICH and GREEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 708
Pages: 1038–1039

Head Matter:
Robert LESPERANCE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 96-2591.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 29, 1998.
Robert Lesperance, in proper person.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Paulette R. Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, GODERICH and GREEN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
A review of the record shows that the evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to support the trial court's finding of indirect criminal contempt. However, as the State properly concedes, because there is nothing in the record suggesting any relationship between the appellant's behavior which gave rise to the charge of indirect criminal contempt and the use of alcohol or drugs, the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the following conditions of probation: abstinence from the use of alcohol, submission to weekly urinalysis, and evaluation for substance abuse. See Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla.1993).
Therefore, we affirm the conviction of indirect criminal contempt, but strike the above referenced conditions.