Case Name: Steven Harris ALMOND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1977-10-11
Citations: 350 So. 2d 810
Docket Number: No. 75-1604
Parties: Steven Harris ALMOND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 350
Pages: 810–811

Head Matter:
Steven Harris ALMOND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 75-1604.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Oct. 11, 1977.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Frank B. Kessler and Jerry L. Schwarz, Asst. Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Harry M. Hipler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals from a Judgment of guilty and Order of Probation after a trial by jury in which Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault.
The trial court ordered Appellant to serve seven years of probation and included in the terms thereof the following conditions:
"(9) You will serve fifty-one weeks in Orange County Jail with credit for time served.
(10)You will reside elsewhere other than Central Florida.
(II) You will not violate any State or Federal laws, County or Municipal Ordinances.
(12)You will not associate with any organized or unorganized motorcycle groups."
The terms of probation exceeds the maximum allowed by two years. See Holmes v. State, 343 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), and Heatherly v. State, 343 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Additionally, Appellant contends and we agree that condition (10) is improper. The requirement that Appellant reside elsewhere than Central Florida is not sufficiently definite to advise Appellant of the limits of the restriction; also it is not clear what relationship this restriction has to Appellant's probation. The trial court in the exercise of its discretion may as a condition of probation say where a probationer may reside. The condition, however, must be sufficiently definite to advise the probationer of the limits of the restriction, and the condition must also bear some reasonable relationship to the purposes of probation. Condition (10) does not meet these criteria and is hereby stricken from the Order of Probation. Upon remand, the trial court may amend the Order of Probation consistent with this opinion. In all other respects the Judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED as modified and remanded.
ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
MILLER, ROBERT P., Associate Judge, concurs in part and dissents in part, with opinion.