From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zachary v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Mar 30, 1990
559 So. 2d 105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Summary

striking a condition for vagueness where the order did not "sufficiently apprise [probationer] of what she must do or refrain from doing"

Summary of this case from Lawson v. State

Opinion

No. 87-02868.

March 30, 1990.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, James D. Arnold, J.

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.


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.

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.


Summaries of

Zachary v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Mar 30, 1990
559 So. 2d 105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

striking a condition for vagueness where the order did not "sufficiently apprise [probationer] of what she must do or refrain from doing"

Summary of this case from Lawson v. State
Case details for

Zachary v. State

Case Details

Full title:ELIZABETH ZACHARY, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Mar 30, 1990

Citations

559 So. 2d 105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Citing Cases

Vasquez v. State

Accordingly, we strike these two special conditions because they were not orally pronounced at sentencing.…

Siplin v. State

He argues that when a written pronouncement of sentence conflicts with a written order, the oral…