Supreme Court of Florida, 1996

State v. Sheffield

State v. Sheffield
Supreme Court of Florida · Decided February 22, 1996 · Anstead, Grimes, Harding, Kogan, Overton, Shaw, Wells
668 So. 2d 600; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 85; 1996 Fla. LEXIS 140; 1996 WL 75330 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

State v. Sheffield

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

We have for review a decision of the Second District Court of Appeal passing upon a question certified to be of great public importance:

DOES THE SUPREME COURT’S PROMULGATION OF THE FORM “ORDER OF PROBATION” IN FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.986 CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO PROBATIONERS OF CONDITIONS 1-11 SUCH THAT ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THESE CONDITIONS BY THE TRIAL COURT IS UNNECESSARY?

See Sheffield v. State, 651 So.2d 160, 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Since we have already answered the identical question in the affirmative in State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589 (Fla. 1996), we quash the district court decision and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with Hart.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.