JACQUELINE YVETTE WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jacqueline Wright appealed the denial of her motion to suppress evidence in a cocaine possession case. While the appellate court affirmed the denial of the suppression motion, it reversed certain aspects of the sentencing, striking improperly imposed costs and special conditions of probation.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the suppression motion, finding no error in that denial. However, the court reversed the imposition of costs and special conditions of probation, holding that the costs were imposed without proper notice and statutory authority, and that the ten special conditions were improperly imposed without meeting the required standards.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence is affirmed when the search and seizure were not illegal.
[2] Costs imposed against a defendant must be preceded by proper notice and statutory authority.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The costs were imposed against the appellant without prior notice, and the record does not reflect proper statutory authority for their assessment.”
Establishes that the trial court erred in imposing costs without due process compliance and statutory authority
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWright was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of controlled substance paraphernalia. She filed a motion to suppress evidence based on i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Authority For Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellant, Jacqueline Yvette Wright, challenges an order denying her motion to suppress evidence. She also contends that the trial court’s order withholding adjudica-, tion and placing her on probation was erro-' neous. We find no error in the denial of the appellant’s motion to suppress evidence and, accordingly, affirm the trial court in that respect. We do, however, agree that the trial court erred in imposing certain costs and conditions of probation.
The appellant was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of controlled substance paraphernalia. After her motion to suppress evidence on the grounds of an illegal search and seizure was denied, she pled nolo contendere to these charges and reserved her right to appeal the search and seizure question. The trial court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed her on two years probation on the possession of cocaine charge and one year concurrent probation on the possession of paraphernalia charge. The appellant was also ordered to pay $238 in court costs and $250 to the court improvement fund. The back of the order placing her on probation contained ten special conditions of probation. This timely appeal followed.
As mentioned above, we find no error in the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to suppress. We agree, however, that the trial court erred at the time the appellant was placed on probation. The costs were imposed against the appellant without prior notice, and the record does not reflect proper statutory authority for their assessment. See Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984); Brown v. State, 506 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 515 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1987). We, accordingly, strike the cost assessments without prejudice to the state seeking to have them reimposed after complying with the requirements of due process. See Jenkins; Brown.
We also agree that the trial court’s ten special conditions of probation were improperly imposed. See Bentley v. State, 411 So. 2d 1361, 1365-1366 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 419 So. 2d 1195 (Fla.1982). We, accordingly, strike the ten special conditions listed on the back of the probation order. If the appellant’s probation order is subsequently modified pursuant to section 948.03(4), Florida Statutes (1987), and additional conditions of probation are added, we remind the trial court that a condition of probation is invalid unless it is reasonably related to the offense committed and the rehabilitation of the defendant. Grubbs v. State, 373 So. 2d 905 (Fla.1979).
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
FRANK and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…ever, this court must require compliance with the existing statutes. . Aultman v. State, 515 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Singletary v. State, 520 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Brewer v. State, 531 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Wright v. State, 531 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Varela v. State, 550 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Zachary v. State, 559 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Siplin v. State, 584 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Alfonso v. State, 595 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Gawron v. State, 597…
-
Arnold v. State, 596 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…We strike the amount by which the amount actually assessed exceeds the agreed-to amount. However, we reject appellant’s argument that there is no authority to assess a fine for the Court Improvement Fund, where there is notice. See Wright v. State, 531 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Because appellant affirmatively agreed to the imposition of this fine when he entered his guilty plea, appellant waived any notice claim. The same rationale applies to uphold the $150 cost of prosecution imposed. The $2.00 assess…
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Grubbs v. State, 373 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1979)
- Bentley v. State, 411 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Alphonso Brown v. State, 506 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)