Weinshenker v. State
Weinshenker v. State
662 So. 2d 770; 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 11963; 1995 WL 676122
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Weinshenker v. State
Opinion of the Court
We affirm the trial court’s imposition without pronouncement of the probation condition that prohibited appellant from visiting “places where controlled substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used.” See Zeigler v. State, 647 So.2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). However, lack of oral pronouncement requires us to reverse that part of condition k.3 which ordered appellant not to possess, carry or own any weapons without the consent of his probation officer. See Vasquez v. State, 663 So.2d 1343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We remand to the trial court with instructions to correct the probation order consistent herewith.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.