MICHAEL J. RAIMONDO, JR., 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 stricken because they were not orally pronounced, lacked statutory authority, or were imposed without proper notice and opportunity to object.
[1] A condition of probation that was not orally pronounced by the trial court must be stricken if the defendant was not convicted of a felony.
[2] A condition of probation prohibiting the excessive use of intoxicants must be stricken if not orally pronounced.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Raimondo appealed his plea of no contest, challenging probation conditions and costs imposed by the trial court. Some conditions were not oral…
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 Notice And Opportunity To Object cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Michael Raimondo raises numerous issues on appeal concerning his plea of no contest, the lower court proceedings surrounding his plea and the sentence imposed upon the court’s acceptance of his plea. We find no merit in any of the issues raised, except his challenge to probation conditions and costs. We affirm without discussion on all issues except as specifically discussed below.
The trial court did not orally pronounce two contested conditions of probation:
(4) You will not possess, carry or own any firearm. You will not possess, carry or own any weapons without first procuring the consent of your officer. (7) You will not use intoxicants to excess or possess any drugs or narcotics unless prescribed by a physician. Nor will you visit places where intoxicants, drugs or other dangerous substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used.
Condition (4) must be stricken in its entirety. It was not orally pronounced and Mr. Raim-ondo was not convicted of a felony. See Dunbar v. State, 633 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Castillo v. State, 590 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The portion of condition (7) prohibiting excessive use of intoxicants is stricken. Tomlinson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
The lower court also imposed court costs of $100.00, but the order does not delineate the statutory authority for these costs. We strike the court costs and remand to the lower court for proceedings consistent with Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc). Additionally, the court imposed a lien for attorney’s fees and costs, but the record does not reflect that it gave Raim-ondo notice of its intent to impose these fees or the opportunity to object. We strike these fees and costs as well. Platt v. State, 647 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We also note that the attorney’s fee order was improperly entered by a judge who had previously recused himself. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
THREADGILL, C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Navarrion Johnson v. State, 701 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…tor’s prescription. This condition does not authorize the State to seek a revocation of probation for possession of a lawful, over-the-counter medication. Affirmed as modified. THREADGILL, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., Concur. . See Raimondo v. State, 666 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Geeding v. State, 662 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Williamson v. State, 658 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Dexter v. State, 654 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Heathcoe v. State, 654 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Howard v. St…
-
Nehrke v. State, 683 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…te, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc), Wainwright v. State, 672 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), Bradshaw v. State, 638 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (order must cite proper statutory basis for assessment of costs), and Raimondo v. State, 666 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (striking order imposing “court costs of $100.00” without delineating statutory authority for those costs). AFFIRMING conviction; STRIKING costs and REMANDING; and AFFIRMING sentence in all other respects. ALLEN, WEBSTER and M…
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)
- Tomlinson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Castillo v. State, 590 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Hopps v. State, 633 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Platt v. State, 647 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)