EDWARD WILSON, 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 denial of the motion to suppress and the conviction but remanded for further proceedings regarding sentencing.
Edward Wilson pleaded nolo contendere to drug possession charges, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The record lacke…
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 Court Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Chief Judge.
The appellant, Edward Wilson, pleaded nolo contendere to possession of cannabis and purchase of cannabis, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress. We affirm the denial of the motion to suppress and also affirm the conviction. We remand, however, for further proceedings with respect to sentencing.
The record on appeal does not contain a sentencing guidelines scoresheet. Preparation and review of a scoresheet was mandatory in this case. See Linen v. State, 620 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). We therefore remand for further proceedings to determine if a scoresheet was prepared for sentencing. If it is established that a scoresheet was prepared and the appellant was sentenced consistently therewith, nothing further need be done except to file the scoresheet. Otherwise, the appellant must be resentenced. 620 So. 2d at 255.
In the event resentencing is unnecessary, we strike the following conditions of probation because they were not orally pronounced at sentencing: the second sentence of condition four which states, “[y]ou will not possess, carry, or own any weapons without first procuring the consent of your officer;” the portion of condition seven that states, “[y]ou will not use intoxicants to excess;” and the portion of condition (A) that requires the appellant to pay for alcohol or drag testing. Malone v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
We also strike the imposition of “$15 CIF,” an assessment for the Hillsborough County Court Improvement Fund, because this assessment is not authorized as a cost under any existing statute. See Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111, 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Judgment affirmed; sentence remanded for further proceedings.
BLUE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 685 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…st. Reyes, 655 So. 2d at 119. Furthermore, the trial court’s imposition of “$10.00 CIF” is also stricken since the assessment to the Hillsborough County Court Improvement Fund is not authorized under any existing statute as a cost. Wilson v. State, 685 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). [*850] Accordingly, we affirm the convictions but strike the above-mentioned costs. Affirmed as modified. SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Guinn v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Ardc-Hospitality Mgmt., Inc. v. Randell, 620 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Linen v. State, 620 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)