History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Emond
668 So. 2d 599
Fla.
1996
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

We have for review a decision of the Second District Court of Appeal passing upon the following question certified to be of great public importance:

DOES THE SUPREME COURT’S PROMULGATION OF THE FORM “ORDER OF PROBATION” IN FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.986 CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO PROBATIONERS OF CONDITIONS 1-11 SUCH THAT ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THESE CONDITIONS BY THE TRIAL COURT IS UNNECESSARY?

See Emond v. State, 652 So.2d 419, 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Since we have already answered the identical question in the affirmative in State v. Hart, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S77 (Fla. Feb. 22, 1996), we quash the district court decision and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with Hart.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Emond
Court Name: Supreme Court of Florida
Date Published: Feb 22, 1996
Citation: 668 So. 2d 599
Docket Number: No. 85419
Court Abbreviation: Fla.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.