Spano v. State, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6338

Spano pleaded guilty to two counts of practicing law after suspension under section 454.31, Florida Statutes (2008).
She was placed on one year of community control followed by three years of probation, later repeated after a material violation in March 2009.
One condition required Spano to remain confined to her residence with limited exceptions for approved activities.
In June 2009, a violation was charged when Spano sought a visit with her daughter; she visited despite the officer's denial.
The trial court found willful, substantial violation and again sentenced to one year community control followed by three years probation, imposing a no-contact special condition with her daughter.
Spano challenged the no-contact condition as an improper sentencing condition; the trial court did not rule on the motion to correct sentencing error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether no-contact with the daughter was a valid special condition	Spano argues the condition is unrelated to rehabilitation	State argues condition may be upheld if related to rehabilitation under Rodriguez framework	Remanded to strike the special condition; affirmed in part on related issues

Williams v. State, 879 So.2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (special conditions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Kominsky v. State, 330 So.2d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (special-condition discretion not unbridled)
Rodriguez v. State, 378 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (Rodriguez factors for reasonableness of special conditions)
Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla.1993) (upholds special conditions if at least one Rodriguez factor exists)
Fernandez v. State, 677 So.2d 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (endorsement of Rodriguez framework)
Zeigler v. State, 647 So.2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (limits on link between condition and rehabilitation)
Carter v. State, 677 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (special condition must be reasonably related to defendant's rehabilitation)