GARY LYNN ARNOLD, 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 reversed in part a grand theft conviction sentence, striking certain unorally-pronounced community control conditions and unauthorized statutory assessments while upholding the Court Improvement Fund fine and prosecution costs.
Conditions of community control not orally pronounced must be stricken, and certain statutory assessments are not authorized by their respective statutes.
[1] Conditions of community control that are not orally pronounced at sentencing must be stricken.
[2] A defendant who affirmatively agrees to a fine when entering a guilty plea waives any notice requirement for that fine.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 was convicted of grand theft pursuant to guilty plea and received a community control sentence with various conditions and cost assessments.…
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 Sentencing Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal from a grand theft conviction pursuant to a guilty plea, appellant raises two points relating to sentencing. The first point raises the validity of various conditions related to appellant’s community control sentence. These conditions were that appellant visit no bars, not use intoxicants to excess or visit places where intoxicants, drugs, or other dangerous substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed, or used, and participate in self-improvement programs. These conditions were not orally pronounced and must therefore be stricken. Labar v. State, 584 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Appellant’s second point concerns the validity of various costs assessed against him. Appellant agreed to pay $250 to the Court Improvement Fund, but the amount actually assessed was $265. 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 assessment pursuant to section 943.25(8), Florida Statutes (1991), and the $3.00 assessment pursuant to section 943.-25(4), Florida Statutes (1991), are stricken as not authorized by those statutes. See Siplin v. State, 584 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
Reversed in part and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, 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)…ot supported by a citation to a statute authorizing the assessment. Allen v. State, 508 So. 2d [*120] 360 (Fla.1987).11 In one ease, we described the assessment as a “fine” and suggested that it could be imposed upon proper notice. Arnold, v. State, 596 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). While the concept of this fund is merit-worthy, we reluctantly recede from Arnold and hold that an assessment to this fund is not authorized under any existing statute either as a fine or as a cost. Accordingly, we strike this as…
-
George v. State, 624 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…pronounce in open court special conditions of probation. Olvey v. State, 609 So. 2d 640, 643 (Fla.2d DCA 1992) (en banc) (quoting Tillman v. State, 592 So. 2d 767 (Fla.2d DCA 1992)). Conditions not pronounced orally must be struck. Arnold v. State, 596 So. 2d 486 (Fla.2d DCA 1992). A review of this record reflects that George is correct when he asserts that the trial court did not pronounce in open court special conditions 6, 13, and 14 which the trial court listed in its written order of community control.…
-
Evans v. State, 605 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…e Cumbie v. State, 597 So. 2d 946, 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); (3) the condition of community control requiring appellant to “participate in self-improvement programs” was not orally pronounced at sentencing and is hereby stricken, see Arnold v. State, 596 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1992). Affirmed as modified. ERVIN, MINER and WOLF, JJ„ concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Columbus Ferry Siplin v. State, 584 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Labar v. State, 584 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Wright v. State, 531 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)