JOSE ALIX, 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 while the conviction and sentence are affirmed, certain special conditions of probation and costs imposed by the trial court were erroneous and must be stricken.
Jose Alix appealed his conviction and sentence for grand theft. The trial court imposed special conditions of probation and costs without proper oral …
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 Costs Of Prosecution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jose Alix appeals Ms conviction and sentence for grand theft. We find no reversible error affecting his conviction and affirm.
We agree, however, that the trial court imposed two special conditions of probation without orally pronouncing them at sentencing. This was error. See Zachary v. State, 559 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Condition 4 prohibited the possession or ownership of firearms or weapons without the probation officer’s consent. We affirm the proMbition against owning or possessing firearms but we strike the remainder of condition 4. See Beckner v. State, 604 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We also strike that portion of condition 7 relating to the excessive use of intoxicants but affirm the remainder of condition 7 as a precise definition of a general prohibition that need not be orally pronounced. See Tomlinson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
In addition, the trial court imposed an assessment for the court improvement fund with no citation to the statutory authority and imposed costs of prosecution without following the statutory procedure. Accordingly, we strike these costs. See Sutton v. State, 685 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). On remand, the state may seek reimposition if it follows the dictates of Sutton.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Payton v. Payton, 109 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ding the actual cost of Ms. Payton’s health insurance obligation. See French v. French, 12 So. 3d 278, 279-80 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (remanding for correction of erroneous calculations relating to monthly spousal expenses); Dennison v. Dennison, [*283] 650 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (reversing and remanding order denying petition to modify alimony, where the court substantially miscalculated former husband’s expenses). Life Insurance Requirement In the final judgment, the court ordered Mr. Payton to obtain…
Authorities Cited
- Tomlinson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Zachary v. State, 559 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Beckner v. State, 604 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Gulf OIL Realty Co. v. Dep't OF Transp., 685 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)