Narrative Opinion Summary
Mr. Hurst appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, which he reserved the right to contest when pleading no contest to a cocaine possession charge. The court affirms the denial of the suppression motion but strikes Condition (18) of his probation because it was not imposed orally at sentencing. The State does not object to the removal of this probation condition, and the decision is made without remand. The court affirms the ruling on the suppression issue while also striking Condition (18) of Mr. Hurst’s probation, with Judges Whatley and Northcutt concurring.
Legal Issues Addressed
Probation Conditions Imposed at Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Condition (18) of Mr. Hurst's probation is struck because it was not orally imposed at sentencing, emphasizing the requirement for probation conditions to be stated explicitly during sentencing.
Reasoning: The court affirms the denial of the suppression motion but strikes Condition (18) of his probation because it was not imposed orally at sentencing.
State's Non-Objection to Probation Condition Removalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The State's lack of objection to the removal of Condition (18) supports the decision to strike it without the need for remand, showing acquiescence to the change in probation terms.
Reasoning: The State does not object to the removal of this probation condition, and the decision is made without remand.
Suppression of Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's decision to deny the motion to suppress evidence is upheld, indicating that the evidence was lawfully obtained and admissible in court.
Reasoning: The court affirms the denial of the suppression motion but strikes Condition (18) of his probation because it was not imposed orally at sentencing.