OCE V. STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2001 BERTRAM OCE, ** Appellant, ** vs. ** CASE NO. 3D01-135 THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 97-6734 Appellee. ** Opinion filed October 3, 2001. An Appeal under Fla.R.App.P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Ronald Dresnick, Judge. Bertram Oce, in proper person. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Meredith L. Balo (Fort Lauderdale), Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and SORONDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. SCHWARTZ, C.J., and SORONDO, J., concur. Bertram Oce v. State Case No. 3D01-135 COPE, J. (concurring). I agree that there is no double jeopardy violation in this case. Defendant-appellant Oce committed the charged crimes on February 13, 1997. Statutes (1995), At that time subsection 948.03(5), Florida provided a list of statutory conditions probation and community control for sexual offenders. of Under the statute, these do not require oral pronouncement at the time of sentencing and shall be considered standard conditions of probation or community control for offenders specified in this subsection. Id. In this case there was no oral pronouncement of the statutory conditions, and the statutory conditions were not incorporated into the probationary order until approximately two years after the sentencing date.1 It is reasonably clear that the enactment of subsection 948.03(5), Florida Statutes (1995),2 was an effort to address the problem which had arisen in Lippman v. State, 633 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1994). Because the defendant in this case was subject to the statutory conditions as a matter of law, the belated reduction of 1 Defendant s prior motion for postconviction relief in which he sought to vacate the plea bargain on the ground that it was involuntary was the subject of the appeal in Oce v. State, 742 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). 2 This provision was enacted by chapter 95-283, section 59, Laws of Florida, and applies to crimes committed on or after October 1, 1995. those statutory conditions to writing as an addendum to the probationary order did not violate the defendant s double jeopardy rights. See Andrews v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D 2160 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 5, 2001).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
