TERRY MCDANIELS, 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 held that certain probation conditions, costs, and fees were improperly imposed because they were not orally pronounced or lacked statutory authority.
Terry McDaniels appealed his judgment and sentence for aggravated battery, specifically challenging the imposition of certain probation conditions, co…
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
[*841] BLUE, Judge.
Terry McDaniels appeals, by Anders1 brief, Ms judgment and sentence for aggravated battery. After an independent review of the record, the law, and the supplemental brief of the appellant, we agree with the assistant public defender that no reversible error occurred except in the imposition of probation conditions, costs, and fees.
With respect to the probation conditions, conditions 4, 6, 7 and 8 are general conditions contained in the form order of probation and need not be orally pronounced. See State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1996). The portion of condition 12 providing for random drug and alcohol testing is also a general condition of probation and need not be orally pronounced. See § 948.03(1)(k)1, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1994); Malone v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The portion of condition 12 requiring McDaniels to pay for the testing is not contained in section 948.03(1)(k)1, and is a special condition of probation. Because the trial court did not announce the payment requirement, we strike that portion of condition 12. See Malone, 652 So. 2d at 903-4. Condition 13 requires McDaniels to “waive extradition should a violation of supervision occur.” We strike condition 13 because it is a special condition which was not orally pronounced. See Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
We also strike the $144 county costs because it was imposed without citation to statutory authority; we strike the $2 court cost because it was not orally pronounced at sentencing. See Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In all other respects, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard v. State, 697 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The probation order further requires Howard to pay for the costs of drug/alcohol testing. This too is a special condition of probation that must be stricken because it was not orally pronounced. McDaniels v. State, 679 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The judgment and sentences are affirmed. This ease is remanded with directions to strike the above-referenced special conditions from the written probation order. Pursuant to Johns v. State, 582 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), H…
-
Queen v. State, 832 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…concedes that condition (12) must also be orally pronounced at sentencing because it is a special rather than a general condition. See Steinard v. State, 711 So. 2d 105, 106 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 718 So. 2d 171 (Fla.1998); McDaniels v. State, 679 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Reiter v. State, 674 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Thus both of these conditions must be stricken. [*958] However, condition (13), although not a standard condition of probation nor a general condition, has been upheld even thou…
-
Steinard v. State, 711 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…A 1997). Condition thirteen, requiring Steinard to “waive extradition should a violation of supervision occur,” is also a special condition not orally pronounced at sentencing that must be stricken. See Smith, 702 So. 2d at 1306; McDaniels v. State, 679 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Steinard’s conviction is affirmed; probation conditions twelve and thirteen are stricken. ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1996)
- Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Guinn v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)