MARK BUCHANAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1995-04-21
No. 94-2009
DAUKSCH, W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
654 So. 2d 592 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1995) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in this appeal other than the court’s requirement that Buchanan pay $60.00 to First Step of Volusia County as a condition of probation. Accordingly, we affirm, but strike the condition mentioned above. See Tibero v. State, 646 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Fyler v. State, 645 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Drake v. State, 644 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

AFFIRMED as modified.

DAUKSCH, W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Brendell, 656 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
    …ce is violative of Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1988), State v. Conte, 650 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) and State v. Manning, 605 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Third, the reasons for downward departure are ambiguous. See Knowles v. State, 654 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st [*595] DCA 1995); Cookston v. State, 639 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. den., 649 So. 2d 232 (Fla.1994). Sentence VACATED; REMANDED for resentencing and clarification. COBB and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw