Case Name: Samuel O'NEAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-07-05
Citations: 581 So. 2d 654
Docket Number: No. 90-00538
Parties: Samuel O’NEAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SCHEB, A.C.J., and RYDER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 581
Pages: 654–655

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.