JENNEL L. BREWER, 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.
Jennel Brewer challenged a trial court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence in a cocaine and drug paraphernalia possession case. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the suppression motion but reversed certain aspects of the probation order by striking improperly imposed costs and special conditions.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress evidence but held that the trial court erred in imposing costs without prior notice and statutory authority, and erred in imposing ten special conditions of probation without ensuring they were reasonably related to the offense and rehabilitation.
[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“a condition of probation is invalid unless it is reasonably related to the offense committed and the rehabilitation of the defendant”
Establishes the legal standard for valid probation conditions that the trial court failed to meet.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrewer was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of controlled substance paraphernalia. After her motion to suppress evidence based on ill…
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, Jennel L. Brewer, challenges an order denying her motion to suppress evidence. She also contends that the trial court’s order withholding adjudication and placing her on probation was erroneous. 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)…s involving documented special costs over $1000. However, 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…
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)