Jacques v. State, No. AH-238, AH-262

No. AH-238, AH-262 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | May 26, 1982

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion to suppress. However, we conclude that it was error for the trial court to impose a single general term of probation upon each appellant for three offenses. Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954" court="Fla." date_filed="1977-07-28" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/dorfman-v-state-1658315?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1658315">351 So.2d 954 (Fla.1977); Pearson v. State, 371 So. 2d 569" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." date_filed="1979-05-31" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/pearson-v-state-1961510?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1961510">371 So.2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Price v. State, 393 So. 2d 69" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." date_filed="1981-02-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/price-v-state-1798727?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1798727">393 So.2d 69 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

Accordingly, this cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter separate probation orders for each offense committed by each appellant.

BOOTH, WENTWORTH and WIGGIN-TON, JJ., concur.