PERCY WRIGHT, 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 judgments and sentences are affirmed, certain costs and probation conditions must be modified.
Percy Wright was convicted of possession of cocaine and narcotics paraphernalia. He appealed his judgments and sentences, arguing the trial court erre…
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.
The appellant, Percy Wright, challenges his judgments and sentences for possession of cocaine and possession of narcotics paraphernalia. We reject his argument that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We agree, however, that certain costs and conditions of probation must be struck.
Accordingly, consistent with Curry v. State, 656 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), we direct that on remand the trial court strike from the Judgment for Fine and Costs the imposition of $50 for costs of prosecution and the $2 portion of the total $5 amount assessed for the Criminal Justice Trust Fund pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993).1 We also direct, as in Curry, that condition 4 of appellant’s probation order be struck because a convicted felon may not lawfully possess a firearm. Finally, in accord with Curry, that portion of condition 6 of the probation order requiring appellant to refrain from using intoxicants to excess must be struck because the trial court did not orally pronounce it at sentencing. Otherwise, the remaining restrictions of this condition are valid.2
We, therefore, affirm the appellant’s judgments and sentences but remand to the trial court for modification of the cost judgment and the probation order in accordance with this opinion.
Affirmed and remanded with directions.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and WHATLEY, JJ., concur. . We affirm the imposition of the other costs because they were statutorily mandated. Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc). Additionally, contrary to appellant's argument, the Judgment for Fine and Costs contains citations to the proper statutory authority supporting the assessment of these costs. Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
. Appellant did not specifically challenge any other condition of probation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE Cnty. Parks & Recreation/LEE Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs & Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc. v. Fifer, 996 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…efits and there was no adjudication of Claimant’s entitlement to such benefits, the E/C were entitled to unilaterally suspend PTD benefits because of Claimant’s failure to attend an FCE, or for any other reason. See Knapp v. Fla. Mining & Materials, 662 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). In Knapp, the E/C voluntarily commenced paying PTD benefits. Id. at 984. Subsequently, the claimant sought payment of certain medical benefits, and at a hearing on that issue, the parties stipulated the E/C had previously accep…
-
Rodriguez v. Quality Eng'g Prods. & Nationwide Ins., 995 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…we reverse. When a JCC adjudicates the entitlement to a benefit, which is predicated on an underlying entitlement to another benefit, the e/c cannot unilaterally modify entitlement to that underlying benefit. See Knapp v. Fla. Mining & Materials, 662 So. 2d 983, 985 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). In Knapp, the JCC entered an order awarding PTD supplemental benefits. The order followed the e/c’s administrative acceptance of claimant as PTD. The e/c subsequently suspended Knapp’s PTD benefits on grounds it had adminis…
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)
- Curry v. State, 656 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)