GARY L. MARTIN, 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 affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentences but struck the imposition of costs as a special condition of probation due to lack of statutory authority.
The defendant pleaded guilty to burglary, third-degree grand theft, and grand theft motor vehicle after being arrested for these offenses while operat…
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
PER CURIAM.
We affirm Gary L. Martin’s convictions and sentences in case number 92-2984-A for burglary, third-degree grand theft, and grand theft motor vehicle, but strike the imposition of costs as a special condition of probation.
After the defendant’s arrest for burglary and grand theft while operating a stolen motor vehicle, the state charged Mr. Martin with burglary, third-degree grand theft, grand theft motor vehicle, and possession of burglary tools. The state nolle prossed the charge of possession of burglary tools and the defendant pleaded guilty to the remaining charges.
The trial court sentenced the defendant as a habitual offender to seven years’ imprisonment for burglary, and imposed five years’ probation for third-degree grand theft and grand theft motor vehicle, concurrent to each other but consecutive to the sentence of imprisonment. We affirm these convictions and sentences.
The trial court also imposed $240 in court costs as a special condition of probation. The record does not reflect the authority for imposing such costs in this case. See Wray v. State, 596 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Brown v. State, 506 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 515 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1987). Therefore, these costs are stricken without prejudice to the state to seek reimposition with citation of proper statutory authority.
Affirmed and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hosie v. State, 661 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…ons engaged in criminal activities. Hann v. State, 653 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The trial court also erroneously assessed a “cost/fine” of $30.00 without statutory authority. Martin v. State, 640 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We strike this cost without prejudice for the state to seek reimposition with the citation to proper statutory authority. Lastly, we must strike the $2.00 assessment for costs pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (199…
Authorities Cited
- Alphonso Brown v. State, 506 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Wray v. State, 596 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Parrish v. State, 596 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)