SHANNON L. WILLIAMS, 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 imposition of adult sanctions and most probation conditions, but struck a portion of a probation condition and certain costs/fines.
Shannon L. Williams appealed his sentences for armed robbery convictions, challenging adult sanctions, probation conditions, and court costs. The appe…
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 General Conditions Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Shannon L. Williams appeals the sentences imposed for three armed robbery convictions. He contends that he was improperly sentenced as an adult and that certain conditions of probation and court costs were improperly imposed. We affirm the imposition of adult sanctions. See § 39.059(7)(d), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1994); Thomas v. State, 662 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
Williams challenges portions of conditions of probation five and eight because they were not orally pronounced at sentencing. In view of the supreme court’s recent ruling in State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1996), we conclude that Williams had constructive notice of condition five. Therefore, the court did not err in failing to orally pronounce condition five at sentencing and we affirm that condition. We affirm that portion of condition eight that requires Williams to submit to random testing for alcohol or controlled substances because it is a general condition of probation set out in section 948.03(1)©, Florida Statutes (1993). However, we strike the additional language in condition eight requiring Williams to pay for such testing because it is not contained in the statute and was not orally pronounced at sentencing. See Luby v. State, 648 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
We strike the $2 cost imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993). See Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We also strike the $33 “eost/fine” that was imposed without citation to statutory authority. In all other respects, we affirm.
Affirmed as modified.
DANAHY, AC.J., and FRANK, J., 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)
- State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1996)
- Luby v. State, 648 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Thomas v. State, 662 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)