JAMES M. SHELL, 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 the denial of a motion to suppress evidence but struck probation conditions and costs that were not orally announced at sentencing.
Probation conditions and costs imposed without oral announcement at sentencing must be stricken, but conditions that were orally announced or duplicate statutory requirements may be affirmed.
[1] Probation conditions and costs must be orally announced at sentencing to be enforceable; conditions not orally announced must be stricken.
[2] Probation conditions that duplicate statutory requirements outlined in section 948.03(l)(j)1 may be affirmed even if additional language requiring payment is stricken.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShell appealed a trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence and challenged various probation conditions and costs imposed at sentencing.…
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.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. See Revels v. State, 666 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We must strike, however, two conditions of probation that were not orally announced. Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Although we affirm that portion of condition eight which requires appellant to submit to testing for alcohol or controlled substances because it is a duplication of a general condition of probation outlined in section 948.03(l)(j)l., Florida Statutes (1993), we strike the additional language requiring appellant to pay for such testing. Luby v. State, 648 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Furthermore, while we affirm that portion of condition twenty requiring appellant to submit to a drug and alcohol evaluation, and treatment if needed, as it was orally announced, we strike the unannounced portion of the condition requiring appellant to pay for any prescribed treatment. Daughtery v. State, 654 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
We also must strike the $2.00 discretionary cost imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993), because the trial court did not give appellant notice of the imposition of this cost at sentencing. Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc). The assessment of a $33.00 “cost/ fine” is also stricken as it was not orally announced at sentencing. Hollister v. State, — So. 2d-[1995 WL 750671], 21 Fla.L. Weekly D104 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 20, 1995).
Judgment affirmed; probation conditions and costs stricken.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
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)
- Revels v. State, 666 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Luby v. State, 648 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Daughtery v. State, 654 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)