MARK RICHARD 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.
Mark Richard Martin appealed sentences imposed in three cases, challenging various conditions of probation. The appellate court affirmed the sentences but struck or modified certain probationary conditions that lacked statutory authority or were overly broad.
The court affirmed conditions prohibiting consumption and possession of illegal drugs but struck remaining portions of condition (18) restricting alcohol and associations. The court directed modification of condition (23) to require Martin to work faithfully at suitable employment. The court struck condition (28) imposing fines and court costs for lack of statutory authority, without prejudice to the state seeking reimposition.
[1] A probationary condition prohibiting the consumption and possession of illegal drugs is permissible.
[2] A probationary condition requiring an offender to seek and maintain suitable employment is permissible.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We affirm those portions of condition (18) which prohibit Martin from consuming and possessing illegal drugs. We, however, strike the remaining portions.”
Establishes the court's approval of drug-related restrictions but rejection of overly broad conditions regarding alcohol and associations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt sentencing, the trial court imposed three sets of sentences on the same day and included multiple probationary conditions. These conditions include…
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
PARKER, Judge.
Mark Richard Martin appeals the sentences which the trial court imposed in three cases on the same day. We affirm the sentences except for certain conditions of probation which we strike and modify.
At Martin’s sentencing, the trial court orally pronounced the following probationary conditions:
Also, in addition to the other conditions of the probation, the Court is going to impose the standard drug and alcohol conditions and require you to submit to any type of treatment that may be required, submit to any type of testing that may be requested by your probation officer. And further that you either seek and maintain full-time employment or seek education either by vocational training or by obtaining a G.E.D. or some combination thereof.
The trial court thereafter imposed written conditions of probation which included the following special conditions:
(18) You shall not (consume any alcohol/illegal drugs) (be in possession of alcohol or illegal drugs) (associate with persons who use alcohol or illegal drugs) (frequent places where alcohol is the main source of business or illegal drugs are used).
(23) You will enroll in an Adult Education Program and make a good faith effort toward completion of such basic or functional literacy skills, or toward obtaining a high school equivalency diploma in accordance with F.S. 921.187, or attend vocational training, and/or obtain a job as directed by your Correctional Probation Officer or maintain full-time employment.
(28) You are to pay Fine & Court Costs for case(s) pled to of $300.00, to the Clerk of the Court, Criminal Division, within 4 months prior to termination of probation supervision. You will submit, within thirty (30) days, a written payment plan to your Supervising Officer. We affirm those portions of condition (18) which prohibit Martin from consuming and possessing illegal drugs. We, however, strike the remaining portions. See Callaway v. State, 658 So. 2d 593, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
As to condition (23), we direct the trial court to modify its oral pronouncement to provide that Martin must work faithfully at suitable employment to the best of his ability. See Munson v. State, 654 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Martin is correct that the payment of a fine and court costs which the court imposed as condition (28) must be struck because the court failed to provide statutory authority for the imposition of these costs. See Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The state, however, may seek to reimpose these costs in accordance with the law. See Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
We remand this case to the trial court to modify probation conditions (18) and (23). We strike condition (28) without prejudice for the state to seek reimposition of the fine and costs. We affirm the sentences in all other respects.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Deldesondro Callaway v. State, 658 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Munson v. State, 654 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)