Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Reed v. State
Citations: 652 So. 2d 912; 1995 WL 131993Docket: 93-01738
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; March 28, 1995; Florida; State Appellate Court
Cornelius Reed appeals his judgments and sentences from trial court case numbers 90-8697 and 93-698. The appeal raises multiple issues, but the court finds merit only in Reed's claim regarding improperly imposed probation conditions in case number 93-698. Reed pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced as a habitual offender to five years of imprisonment followed by three years of drug offender probation. The court addresses specific conditions of probation that Reed contests. Condition seven, which restricts Reed from using intoxicants excessively, possessing drugs without a prescription, and visiting places where drugs are illegally sold, is partially valid. The prohibition against visiting illegal drug venues is a general condition that does not require oral pronouncement at sentencing, per precedent. However, the restrictions on excessive use of intoxicants and possession of drugs are considered special conditions that must be orally pronounced; thus, these parts are stricken. Conditions thirteen and fourteen, which prohibit Reed from consuming alcohol or visiting alcohol establishments and impose a 9:00 p.m. curfew, are also stricken because they were not orally pronounced at sentencing, violating the requirement established in Tomlinson v. State. Reed's challenges to conditions twenty-two and twenty-five are not considered because he did not object to these conditions at sentencing. The court notes that these conditions are not so egregious as to constitute fundamental error, leading to their preservation issue. In summary, the court strikes parts of condition seven and eliminates conditions thirteen and fourteen while affirming Reed's judgments and sentences in all other respects. Judges Danahy and Campbell concur with the decision.