CEDRIC LORENZO BROWN, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction for cocaine possession but struck an unpronounced probation condition requiring the defendant to pay for drug testing and prosecution costs that lacked proper documentation of expenses and consideration of ability to pay.
A probation condition requiring the probationer to pay for alcohol and drug screening is a special condition that must be orally pronounced, and prosecution costs cannot be imposed without documentation of actual expenses and consideration of the defendant's ability to pay.
[1] A probation condition requiring the probationer to pay for alcohol and drug screening constitutes a special condition that must be orally pronounced at sentencing, not me…
[2] Prosecution costs under Florida Statutes section 939.01 cannot be imposed without documentation of the state's actual expenses and consideration of the defendant's abilit…
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 intelligence“the portion of the condition which requires the probationer to pay for the screening is a special condition”
Distinguishing between standard conditions that need not be orally pronounced and special conditions that do require oral pronouncement.
Cedric Brown was convicted of cocaine possession and sentenced to probation with various conditions, including one requiring him to pay for alcohol an…
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 Standard Conditions Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
We affirm Cedric Brown’s conviction for possession of cocaine, but strike a portion of a probation condition and prosecution costs.
With respect to probation conditions, conditions 4 (weapons), 7 (intoxicants), and 8 (employment) need not be orally pronounced because the order of probation form in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986 provides notice of these conditions. See State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1996). Condition (A) of Brown’s probation, which was not orally pronounced, requires him to pay for alcohol/drug testing. While submitting to alcohol and drug screening is a standard condition of probation under section 948.03(1)©, Florida Statutes (1993), the portion of the condition which requires the probationer to pay for the screening is a special condition. See Reiter v. State, 674 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Thus, we strike that portion of condition (A) requiring Brown to pay for alcohol and drug screening.
With respect to costs, the trial court erred in imposing $130 in costs of prosecution under section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1993). We strike the prosecution costs because the state did not document the amount of its costs and the trial court did not consider the state’s expenses or Brown’s ability to pay. See Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The state may seek to reimpose the prosecution costs on remand. Id.
Affirmed in part, conditions and costs modified, and remanded.
THREADGILL, C.J., and PARKER J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pearson v. State, 686 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In addition, the trial court imposed $100 in costs of prosecution for the Florida Highway Patrol without considering Pearson’s ability to pay as required by section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1993). See Brown v. State, 677 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Consequently, we also strike this cost. On remand, the state may seek to reimpose these two costs. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. FRANK, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1996)
- Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Reiter v. State, 674 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)