RONALD KIMBALL, 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.
Appellant's conviction for possession of cocaine was reversed based on Carawan/Gordon precedent, costs and fees were struck, and an unconstitutional probation condition was invalidated.
The trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to dismiss the possession of cocaine charge under Carawan and Gordon precedent.
[1] A probation condition prohibiting an offender from living with an unrelated member of the opposite sex is unconstitutional and must be struck.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant pleaded nolo contendere to purchasing and possession of cocaine while reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the …
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 Williams V. State cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to purchasing and possession of cocaine, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the possession of cocaine charge on the basis of Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1987), and Gordon v. State, 528 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), decision approved sub nom., State v. Smith, 547 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1989). See also Lewis v. State, 545 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The trial court placed appellant on two concurrent two-year terms of probation, and imposed court costs and attorney’s fees. After the sentencing hearing and without giving appellant an opportunity to object, the trial court imposed written special conditions of probation, which include the following:
(13) Must not live with member of opposite sex that is not a relative.
(16) Will not ... visit places where intoxicants and drugs are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used.
The facts of this case are virtually indistinguishable from those in our recent decision of Williams v. State, 556 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) [15 F.L.W.D], Accordingly, on the basis of Williams and the authorities cited in that case, we hold that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the possession of cocaine charge. We further strike the imposition of costs and fees without prejudice to the state seeking reassessment after proper notice and hearing. Finally, we strike special condition (13) of appellant’s probation and affirm special condition (16).
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dion Michael Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Smith, 547 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1989)
- Gordon v. State, 528 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Artis Rynard Lewis v. State, 545 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Kuldip Singh Mundi v. State, 556 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Williams v. State, 556 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)