JERRY L. THOMPSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Oral Pronouncement Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.
Jerry L. Thompson has appealed from his conviction for attempted second degree murder. We find no error in the asserted impermissible admission of evidence, and we affirm the judgment and sentence.
Certain special conditions of probation imposed at sentencing, however, were not orally pronounced and must be stricken: (1) portions of condition number four that prohibit carrying of weapons not enumerated in section 790.23, Florida Statutes (1993); (2) that portion of condition number seven prohibiting the defendant from using intoxicants to excess; and (3) that portion of condition twelve requiring the defendant to pay for breathalyzer, blood, or urine tests, unless the fee is waived by an officer. Malone v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Tomlinson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Furthermore, the $2.00 cost imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993), should also be stricken. Watson v. State, 647 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Judgment and sentence affirmed but we strike the improper probation conditions and the $2.00 cost.
LAZZARA and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lazo v. State, 711 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…and in rejecting Lazo’s challenge to comments expressed by the prosecutor. We do find error in the assessment of costs and fees. The $2 discretionary cost must be stricken because it was not pronounced orally at sentencing. See Thompson v. State, 667 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The $500 public defender hen must be stricken. It is not clear from the record whether Lazo agreed to the amount of the fee, and the trial court did not advise him that he could contest the amount of the fee. See Allmond v. Sta…
-
Valentine v. State, 307 So. 3d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…ns. He suggests the current test abridges Florida’s constitutional protections. Because our supreme court expressly adopted Manson in Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1980), we are bound to apply its test.2 See Putnam Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Debose, 667 So. 2d 447, 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Under Manson, we first review whether the identification was unnecessarily suggestive. 2 The Innocence Project, Inc. and the Innocence Project of Florida filed amici curiae briefs in support of the defendant’s argument tha…
-
Jace Andrews v. McKim & Creed & Travelers Prop. Cas., 355 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)…wer tribunal or court may bring its concerns regarding the application of specific case law to the appellate courts, it is nonetheless bound to follow precedent. See Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431, 434 (Fla. 1973); Putnam Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Debose, 667 So. 2d 447, 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, lower courts are bound to adhere to the rulings of higher courts when considering similar issues even though the lower court might believe the law should be otherwise.”). The JCC impro…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tomlinson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Guinn v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Watson v. State, 647 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)