WALLACE CALVIN LAMPP, 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.
Wallace Calvin Lampp appeals his grand theft conviction. The court affirms the conviction but strikes certain costs imposed without proper statutory authority or notice, and strikes a probation condition requiring the appellant to pay for substance testing.
The court affirms the conviction but strikes: (1) the $2 criminal justice education fund cost as a discretionary cost imposed without oral notification; (2) the $433 and $688 in costs as imposed without proper statutory citations; (3) the $600 in public defender fees as imposed without notice of the right to a hearing to contest the amount; and (4) the portion of probation condition (8) requiring payment for random substance testing.
[1] Discretionary costs imposed without oral notification to the defendant must be stricken.
[2] Costs imposed without citation to their proper statutory authorities must be stricken.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We strike the $2 cost imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993), for the criminal justice education fund, since it is a discretionary cost and was imposed without oral notification to the appellant.”
Establishes that discretionary costs require oral notification to the defendant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLampp was charged with grand theft in violation of Florida Statutes section 812.014(2)(c). A jury found him guilty as charged. The trial court adjudic…
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 Anders Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Wallace Calvin Lampp, challenges the trial court’s judgment and sentence. After a review of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm the appellant’s conviction without discussion. However, we find that the trial court erred in imposing certain costs and a probation condition. The appellant pled not guilty to the charge of grand theft, in violation of section 812.014(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1993). After the jury found him guilty as charged, the trial court adjudicated him guilty, stayed, and withheld the imposition of sentence, and ordered him to serve four years probation and to pay court costs. This timely appeal followed.
We strike the $2 cost imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993), for the criminal justice education fund, since it is a discretionary cost and was imposed without oral notification to the appellant. Faulk v. State, 661 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We also strike the $433 “Cost/ Fine” and the $688 “Court Cost” since those costs were imposed without citations to their proper statutory authorities. Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Further, we strike the $600 in public defender fees since the appellant was not advised of his right to a hearing to contest the proposed amount. Bourque v. State, 595 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). On remand, the appellant should be given thirty days from the date of the mandate within which to file a written objection to the amount of the public defender fees. Sandefur v. State, 660 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). If an objection is filed, the assessment should be stricken and a new assessment should not be imposed without notice and hearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1). Sandefwr. With regard to probation conditions, we strike that portion of probation condition (8) that requires the appellant to pay for random alcohol or controlled substance testing. Malone v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction but strike those costs and that portion of probation condition (8) mentioned above.
Affirmed as modified.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Bourque v. State, 595 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Guinn v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Faulk v. State, 661 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Sandefur v. State, 660 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)