KEVEL WATSON, 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.
Watson appealed his probation sentence, challenging four conditions imposed by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the drug offender probation status and bar/liquor store restrictions, but reversed the $1.00 First Step assessment and the public defender's lien imposed without a noticed hearing.
Probation conditions that are not illegal cannot be appealed absent contemporaneous objection at trial; therefore, the drug offender status and bar/liquor store restrictions are affirmed. The $1.00 assessment for First Step of Volusia County is struck as improper. The public defender's lien of $100.00 is reversed and the case is remanded for a noticed hearing on that issue.
[1] A trial court's failure to make a specific finding required by statute is not preserved for appellate review if a contemporaneous, specific objection was not made at the…
[2] A motion to correct a sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) is not intended to address errors in the sufficiency of proof for a violation…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“in the absence of a contemporaneous objection before the trial court, a defendant may appeal a condition of probation only if it is, in fact, illegal; if not, the failure to object is an absolute bar”
Establishes the standard for appellate review of probation conditions, which prevents review of conditions that were not illegal even if not objected to at trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatson was sentenced to probation with multiple conditions, including designation as a drug offender, a requirement to avoid bars and liquor stores, a…
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 Contemporaneous Objection Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The appellant Watson raises four points on appeal, claiming the trial court erred in (1) imposing drug offender probation without a record basis to do so; (2) ordering as a special condition of probation that Watson avoid bars and liquor stores; (3) ordering Watson to pay $1.00 per month to First Step of Volusia County; and (4) imposing a public defender’s lien of $100.00 without noticed hearing.
We reject Watson’s first two points because, in the absence of a contemporaneous objection before the trial court, a defendant may appeal a condition of probation only if it is, in fact, illegal; if not, the failure to object is an absolute bar. Larson v. State, 572 So. 2d 1368 (Fla.1991). We do not find that the instant conditions imposed by the trial court are illegal, hence they do not constitute fundamental error. See also Boudreaux v. State, 578 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Bentley v. State, 411 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), cert. denied, 419 So. 2d 1195 (Fla.1982).
We agree with the appellant in respect to the $1.00 assessment for First Step of Volu-sia County and strike that portion of the order. See Eckenrode v. State, 638 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Gedeon v. State, 636 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Botts v. State, 634 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Thomas v. State, 633 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). We also reverse the imposition of the fee for the public defender and remand for noticed hearing. Shipley v. State, 528 So. 2d 902 (Fla.1988); Klarstrom v. State, 610 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). See also Dukes v. State, 639 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 5th DCA July 1, 1994).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
HARRIS, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holmes v. State, 658 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…o conditions of probation unless the conditions are so egregious as to be the equivalent of fundamental error or are illegal. Larson v. State, 572 So. 2d 1368, 1370-71 (Fla.1991); Devine v. State, 636 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Watson v. State, 641 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Sweet v. State, 644 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The prosecution costs and public defender fees imposed as conditions of probation in this case are neither illegal nor so egregious as to amount to fundamental error, and are t…
-
McLEOD v. State, 645 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…must be vacated. Mittner v. State, 648 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Murray v. State, 647 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Tibero v. State, 646 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Avallone v. State, 646 So .2d 745 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Watson v. State, 641 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Macon v. State, 639 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Eckenrode v. State, 638 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Botts v. State, 634 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Additionally, the court improperly assessed attorney fees against ap…
-
McCLENDON v. State, 659 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…bly related to future criminality. Biller v. State, 618 So. 2d 734 (Fla.1993). The problem with this objection is that McClendon failed to make it at his sentencing hearing. See Bledsoe v. State, 657 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Watson v. State, 641 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA [*719] 1994); Grasso v. State, 639 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Devine v. State, 636 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Nor do we see that the condition relating to alcohol announced at the sentencing hearing is materially different t…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Myren Wayne Larson v. State, 572 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1991)
- Bentley v. State, 411 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Shipley v. State, 528 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1988)
- Menchaca v. State, 636 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Botts v. State, 634 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Boudreaux v. State, 578 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Arjomand v. Alec J. Ross, 633 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Lenthius Daryl Thomas v. State, 633 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Pierce v. Dudley Vees and Alice Vees, 610 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Hernandez v. State, 638 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)