JAMES BENJAMIN CREWS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1995-07-19
No. 94-02870
THREADGILL, C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.
658 So. 2d 616 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1995) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court affirmed the convictions but struck certain probation conditions and costs, remanding for a new restitution hearing.


Facts & Procedural History

The appellant was convicted of armed burglary and grand theft. The trial court imposed certain probation conditions and costs, and ordered restitution…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PATTERSON, Judge.

PATTERSON, Judge.

The appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for armed burglary and grand theft. We find no error affecting the appellant’s convictions and therefore affirm. However, we strike certain conditions of probation and costs which the trial court improperly imposed and remand for a new restitution hearing.

The following special conditions were not announced at sentencing and must be stricken: condition 5 which prohibits the use of intoxicants to excess, Tomlinson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); and condition 8 which requires the appellant to pay for random drug testing, Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

The $2 cost the trial court imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993), was not announced at sentencing and must be stricken. Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We also strike the $33 cost/fine since the trial court failed to cite statutory authority for the cost. Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). In addition, the appellant correctly argues that the trial court erred in imposing restitution of $7,012 without sufficient proof of the victim’s loss. See Massie v. State, 635 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s convictions for armed burglary and grand theft. We strike the invalid probation conditions and costs, and remand for a new restitution hearing.

Affirmed in part. Reversed in part and remanded.

THREADGILL, C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Crews v. State, 700 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
    …second appeal concerning the restitution issue. The first appeal resulted in this court remanding for a new restitution hearing because the original order of restitution had been imposed without sufficient proof of the victim’s loss. Crews v. State, 658 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Our independent review of the record in this appeal revealed that no final order of restitution had been entered after the second restitution hearing. We therefore relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court for entry of a final…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw