ELVIA WARDELL MATHEWS, 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 affirmed convictions but struck certain probation conditions and costs that were improperly imposed.
Defendant was convicted of drug offenses and appealed his convictions, sentences, probation conditions, and costs. The trial court imposed special pro…
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
PER CURIAM.
Elvia Wardell Mathews appeals his convictions and sentences for possession of cocaine and possession of cannabis. We affirm his convictions without discussion; however, we strike certain conditions of Mathews’ probation and certain costs imposed by the trial court.
First, the trial court improperly imposed two special conditions of probation without announcing these conditions at sentencing. See Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We affirm condition four insofar as it prohibits the ownership or possession of a firearm, but strike the part of condition four relating to weapons. Further, we strike the portion of condition seven that prohibits the excessive use of intoxicants. See Brown v. State, 658 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Second, $130 was assessed for prosecution costs. However, at the sentencing hearing, there was no request for such costs as required by section 939.01(1), Florida Statutes (1993). Consequently, this cost must be stricken. On remand, the state may seek to reimpose appropriate costs in accordance with Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We also strike the assessment of $15 for the Hillsborough County Court Improvement Fund because this assessment is not authorized as a cost under any existing statute. See Reyes.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences, but strike portions of the probation conditions and portions of the costs assessed.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Race, 743 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…documentary stamp taxes be imposed under the circumstances of this case. Section 201.02(1) clearly provides that the amount of an encumbrance which survives a conveyance, is subject to documentary stamp taxes. Chapparal Partners v. Dept. of Revenue, 662 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1995). But we are of the opinion that taxes are due only once on the same encumbrance regarding the same person. See American Foam Industries v. Dept. of Revenue, 345 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Straughn v. Story, 334 So. 2d 337 (F…
Authorities Cited
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Bridgette Brown v. State, 658 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)