JOHN M. GODWIN, 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.
John Godwin appealed his no-contest plea to drug possession charges, challenging the Fourth Amendment validity of the search and sentencing procedures. The court affirmed the conviction but struck certain costs and conditions of probation that lacked proper statutory authority or procedural compliance.
The court affirmed the conviction, finding the search consensual and valid, but struck four specific costs and conditions of probation: a $12 STEP program cost without statutory authority, a $100 FDLE trust fund assessment without proper documentation or ability-to-pay consideration, a condition allowing firearm possession with probation officer consent, and a requirement to pay for drug/alcohol evaluations without oral pronouncement.
[1] A trial court is entitled to discount a defendant's testimony as less credible, especially when the defendant admits to intoxication on the night of the arrest.
[2] A search of a suspect's pocket is permissible when the suspect consents to the search after consenting to a pat-down that reveals a hard object.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The trial court was entitled, as it did, to discount Godwin's discrepant testimony as less credible, noting, as one factor, his admitted intoxication on the night of his arrest.”
Establishes the trial court's authority to assess credibility in determining voluntariness of consent to search.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGodwin was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation. The driver was arrested on an outstanding warrant and requested Godwin take posse…
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 Consensual Search cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
John Godwin pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine and marijuana and was placed on probation for one year. He now challenges his judgment and sentence asserting a Fourth Amendment violation and procedural errors at sentencing. We affirm the judgment and sentence but we strike certain costs and conditions of probation.
The arresting officer described at the suppression hearing the events precipitating Godwin’s arrest. Godwin was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation on a late evening in November of 1994. The driver was arrested on an outstanding warrant and he requested that Godwin be allowed to take possession of the vehicle. Godwin agreed, produced his driver’s license, and began a field sobriety test. The sobriety test was interrupted, however, when Godwin repeatedly placed his hands in his pockets. The officer observed a bulge in one of the pockets. With Godwin’s consent, the officer conducted a pat-down revealing the presence of a hard object, possibly a weapon. When Godwin consented to a further search of the pocket, contraband was found.
Based on the officer’s testimony, the trial court determined that both the encounter and the search of Godwin’s pocket were consensual. The trial court was entitled, as it did, to discount Godwin’s discrepant testimony as less credible, noting, as one factor, his admitted intoxication on the night of his arrest. See Maurer v. State, 668 So. 2d 1077, 1078-79 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Brown v. State, 352 So. 2d 60, 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). We decline to disturb the trial court’s ruling and affirm Godwin’s judgment.
We do, however, strike the following costs and conditions of probation: a $12 cost for the STEP 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 requiring Godwin to pay for any drug and alcohol evaluations for lack of oral pronouncement, see Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2D DCA 1994).
Accordingly, we affirm Godwin’s conviction and sentence but strike the costs and conditions identified above.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, 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)
- Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Fitts v. State, 649 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Maurer v. State, 668 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Brown v. State, 352 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Rausch v. State, 664 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- State v. J.W., 664 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)