ALAN EDMUNDS, 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.
The court held that court costs and certain special conditions of probation must be stricken due to lack of notice, hearing, or relevance to the crime.
Appellant challenged special conditions of probation and the imposition of court costs. The underlying conviction was for trafficking in cocaine.…
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 Imposition Of Court Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges several special conditions of probation and the imposition of court costs by the trial court.
We strike the imposition of court costs because they were imposed without notice and a hearing. Wood v. State, 544 So. 2d 1004, 1006 (Fla.1989); Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). The state may seek reimposition of costs after proper notice and hearing.
We also strike the following special conditions of probation:
Condition 11 — Visit no bars,' restaurants or any place where alcoholic beverages are served without written permission from the probation officer, after consent from judge.
Condition 21 — You are not to be within three (3) blocks of known high drug areas as determined by your probation or community control officer. Condition eleven is unrelated to the crime for which defendant was convicted, trafficking in cocaine, and relates to conduct which is not itself criminal. See Rodriguez v. State, 378 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Furthermore, it delegates impermissible authority to a probation officer. See Denson v. State, 493 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Condition twenty-one has previously been stricken by this court. See Huff v. State, 554 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
Accordingly, we strike the imposition of court costs and special conditions of probation eleven and twenty-one. Otherwise, we affirm.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Gregory v. State, 616 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…gueness, Gregory relies principally upon Alvarez v. State, 593 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), and Huff v. State, 554 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). One of the conditions stricken in Alvarez involved “consumption of alcohol.” Citing Edmunds v. State, 559 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), the court found this condition was unrelated to the offense for which Alvarez was convicted. By contrast, restrictions upon this sort of conduct may be highly relevant in a case where the crime itself involves the use or distribu…
-
Richardson v. State, 620 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…set forth in Rodriguez. The condition is not related to the crime charged; the consumption of alcohol is not illegal; and the use of alcohol is not reasonably related to future criminality. Accordingly, we strike the condition. See Edmunds v. State, 559 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Additionally, at sentencing while the trial court instructed Richardson not to consume any alcohol, the court did not instruct Richardson that he could not “frequent places where alcohol is the main source of business.” Therefo…
-
Alvarez v. State, 593 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…assume that the trial court imposed other conditions as well. As guidance on remand, we address as follows the propriety of all the conditions that appear to be at issue: (1) Consumption of alcohol. This condition is invalid under Edmunds v. State, 559 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), a factually analogous case. (2) Consumption of illegal drugs. Patently valid. (3) Possession of alcohol or illegal drugs. Invalid before the “or”; valid after it. Ed-munds. (4) Associate with persons who use alcohol or illegal dr…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Wood v. State, 544 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1989)
- Rodriguez v. State, 378 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Denson v. State, 493 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Huff v. State, 554 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)