Zachary v. State, 559 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Zachary v. State, 559 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Justin Randolph Demott v. State of Florida (fla, 2016-06-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Justin Randolph Demott v. State of Florida
Fla. · 2016 · confidence medium
Similarly, a condition “requiring [the appellant] to iforfeit all weapons or tools’ ” was deemed vague in Zachary v. State, 559 So.2d 105, 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" Geller v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Zachary v. State, 559 So.2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" Alix v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Zachary v. State, 559 So.2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" Muro v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Zachary v. State, 559 So.2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lawson v. State
Fla. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Hines v. State, 358 So.2d 183, 185 (Fla.1978); see also Zachary v. State, 559 So.2d 105, 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (striking a condition for vagueness where the order did not "sufficiently apprise [probationer] of what she must do or refrain from doing"); Pratt v. State, 516 So.2d 328, 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (finding condition "insufficient to apprise [probationer] of which otherwise lawful acts are prohibited"); Mastick v. State, 409 So.2d 203, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) ("A probation order must sufficiently instruct the probationer as to what he must do or refrain from doing while on probation.…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Elizabeth ZACHARY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
87-02868.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Mar 30, 1990.
559 So. 2d 105
1990 WL 35349
Campbell.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Phil Patterson, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

CAMPBELL, Chief Judge.

Appellant, Elizabeth Zachary, appeals her conviction and sentence for attempted burglary. Appellant's first point is without merit and we, therefore, affirm her conviction. We do, however, find merit in appellant's other three contentions in regard to sentencing errors.

First, appellant argues that the trial court erred in assessing $250 against her at sentencing for the Court Improvement Fund without first giving her notice and opportunity to be heard. We agree the state must provide adequate notice of assessment of costs with full opportunity to object. Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla. 1984). Accordingly, the $250 cost provision is vacated.

[*106] Second, appellant's written probation order established an 11:00 p.m. curfew, but there was no mention of a curfew at appellant's sentencing hearing. A judge's written sentence must comport with the judge's oral pronouncement at sentencing. Jacobs v. State, 533 So.2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We, therefore, remand for correction of the written order of probation.

Third, we agree with appellant's final argument that condition fourteen of the probation order does not sufficiently apprise her of what she must do or refrain from doing. Condition fourteen, requiring her to "forfeit all weapons or tools" is vague and should be stricken. See Mastick v. State, 409 So.2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

We, therefore, affirm appellant's conviction and remand for correction of her sentence and order of probation as provided for herein.

SCHOONOVER and FRANK, JJ., concur.