Gallagher v. State, 421 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Gallagher v. State, 421 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matthews v. State (fladistctapp, 1999-06-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matthews v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Brown v. State, 305 So.2d 309, 310 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Welsh v. State, 326 So.2d 37, 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (stating that "it is ... too late to question" a condition of probation after probation has been revoked); see also Gaskins v. State, 607 So.2d 475, 476 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), overruled on other grounds, State v. Powell, 703 So.2d 444 (Fla.1997) ("[E]xisting case law recognizes that once a defendant has enjoyed the benefits of probation without challenging the legality of [the] sentence, the defendant is thereafter precluded from complaining that the sentence is illegal in an appeal from …
cited Cited "see" State v. Thurman
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gallagher v. State, 421 So.2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Schoeller v. State, 791 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Matthews v. State, 736 So.2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
cited Cited "see" Humes v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gallagher v. State, 421 So.2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
David Richard GALLAGHER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
81-1543.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Oct 6, 1982.
421 So. 2d 581
Orfinger.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

[*582] Michael H. Lambert, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sean Daly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

ORFINGER, Chief Judge.

The trial court revoked appellant's probation which had been imposed following a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of vehicular homicide. He appeals. We affirm.

Appellant attacks the revocation order by arguing that two of the conditions of probation originally imposed are vague, arbitrary, indefinite, overbroad and not reasonably related to the offense for which he was placed on probation. But, this is not an appeal from the original order of probation. The attack on the conditions comes only after a violation is charged, some twenty months later, and such attack is too late. We reiterate what we said in Bentley v. State, 411 So.2d 1361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

"At sentencing, the trial court should clearly delineate all terms upon which he deems it necessary to condition probation and the defendant should clearly state of record his objections and refusal to accept conditions of probation, failing which he should be deemed to have accepted such conditions. In the event the trial court imposes such conditions upon a defendant over the defendant's clear objection, the defendant must appeal from the original probation order rather than attacking the imposition of a condition after its breach." (emphasis added).

Id. at 1366. See also, Bouie v. State, 360 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Brown v. State, 305 So.2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).

Appellant's arguments on the sufficiency of the allegations of violation and on the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the revocation order are without merit. The order revoking probation is

AFFIRMED.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, J., and COBB, JJ., concur.