Narrative Opinion Summary
Sheldon Theodore Lutz appeals his convictions for trafficking and possession of controlled substances, possession of paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm by a felon. The court finds no error regarding the admission of evidence and upholds the convictions and sentences. However, certain special conditions of probation that were not orally pronounced at sentencing are deemed improper and must be stricken. Specifically, portions of condition (20), which require Lutz to undergo and pay for an evaluation regarding a potential treatable alcohol problem and to fund any drug or alcohol treatment, are invalid due to the lack of oral pronouncement as mandated by State v. Hart and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(e). The court affirms the judgments and sentences but removes the specified portions of probation condition (20). The decision is concurred by Judges Threadgill, Ryder, and Schoonover.
Legal Issues Addressed
Admission of Evidence in Criminal Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no error in the admission of evidence, affirming the convictions and sentences related to trafficking and possession charges.
Reasoning: The court finds no error regarding the admission of evidence and upholds the convictions and sentences.
Modification of Probation Conditionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court modified the terms of probation by removing conditions that required payment and evaluation for potential alcohol problems, due to a lack of oral pronouncement.
Reasoning: Specifically, portions of condition (20), which require Lutz to undergo and pay for an evaluation regarding a potential treatable alcohol problem and to fund any drug or alcohol treatment, are invalid due to the lack of oral pronouncement as mandated by State v. Hart and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(e).
Oral Pronouncement Requirement for Probation Conditionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Special conditions of probation that were not orally pronounced at sentencing are invalid. The court struck portions of condition (20) as they were not pronounced as required by precedent and procedural rules.
Reasoning: However, certain special conditions of probation that were not orally pronounced at sentencing are deemed improper and must be stricken.