MARK A. RAUSCH, 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 certain probation conditions and costs must be struck because they were not orally pronounced by the trial court at sentencing.
The defendant was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm. The trial court imposed certain probation conditions and costs that were not orally …
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 Discretionary Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mark A. Rausch appeals his judgment and sentence for aggravated battery with a firearm. We affirm the judgment and sentence. We, however, are compelled to strike certain special probation conditions and costs.
The trial court did not orally pronounce probation conditions (7) and (12) at sentencing but listed them in the sentence as special conditions of probation. That portion of condition (7) that prohibits the excessive use of intoxicants must be struck because the court did not orally pronounce it at sentencing. See Hart v. State, 651 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (citing Tomlinson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)), review granted, No. 85,168, 659 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. June 22, 1995). That portion of condition (12) which requires Rausch to pay for drug testing must be struck because the trial court did not orally pronounce it at sentencing. See Luby v. State, 648 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Cumbie v. State, 597 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
The $2 cost imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1991), for the Local Criminal Justice Education Fund is discretionary and requires oral pronouncement at sentencing. It, therefore, must be struck without prejudice for the state to seek reimposition. See Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111, 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc). The $25 cost of prosecution is discretionary and must be orally pronounced. Reyes, 655 So. 2d at 117. Further, the record fails to show that the state requested and documented the cost; therefore, that cost must be struck without prejudice for the state to seek reimposition.
We affirm the judgment and sentence but strike portions of probation conditions (7) and (12). We also strike the $2 cost and the $25 cost of prosecution and remand for the trial court to permit the state to seek reimposition of those costs.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. & the Fla. Dep't of Law Enf't v. Morelia Silva, 691 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…s to limit the ex-pungement order solely to court records. . The trial court, of course, did not have the benefit of D.H.W. when it ruled on defendant’s petition for expungement. . The First District reached a contrary conclusion in State v. J.W., 664 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We do not think that J.W. survives the Florida Supreme Court's decision in D.H.W. That is so because the court in D.H.W. said, "Because the sealing order did not meet the requirements of section 943.059(2), the trial court also…
-
Godwin v. State, 676 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…program imposed without citation to statutory authority, see Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); a $100 assessment for the FDLE trust fund imposed without documentation or consideration of Godwin’s ability to pay, see Rausch v. State, 664 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); that portion of condition four which suggests that a convicted felon may possess a firearm with the consent of his probation officer, see Fitts v. State, 649 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); finally, that part of condition fourteen…
Authorities Cited
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Tomlinson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Hart v. State, 651 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Cumbie v. State, 597 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Luby v. State, 648 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)