GERALD BOYD, 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.
Gerald Boyd appeals his convictions for armed possession of cannabis, carrying a concealed firearm, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court affirms his convictions but modifies his sentence by striking certain probation conditions and costs that violated sentencing requirements.
The court affirmed Boyd's convictions but struck or modified several probation conditions and the FDLE costs. Specifically, the court struck the alcohol consumption and possession condition because it was a special condition not orally announced at sentencing; modified the employment condition to include 'to the best of his ability'; struck portions of conditions requiring payment for drug and alcohol testing, evaluation, and treatment because they were special conditions not orally announced; and struck the $100 in FDLE costs because they were imposed without a request, documentation, or consideration of defendant's ability to pay.
[1] A special condition of drug offender probation that is not orally announced at sentencing must be stricken or modified.
[2] A condition requiring a defendant to work at suitable employment may be modified to require the defendant to work to the best of his ability.
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 affirm his convictions without discussion. We must strike or modify, however, the following conditions of drug offender probation and the imposition of costs to be paid to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE).”
Establishes that convictions are affirmed but sentencing conditions and costs require modification.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGerald Boyd was convicted of armed possession of cannabis, carrying a concealed firearm, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At sentenci…
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 Ability To Pay Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Gerald Boyd, challenges his judgment and sentences for armed possession of cannabis, carrying a concealed firearm, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
We affirm his convictions without discussion. We must strike or modify, however, the following conditions of drug offender probation and the imposition of costs to be paid to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE).
Accordingly, we strike the portion of Condition 18 concerning the consumption and possession of alcohol because it is a special condition that was not orally announced at sentencing. Reed v. State, 652 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We modify Condition 6 requiring defendant to work at suitable employment to state “to the best of his ability.” Gipson v. State, 670 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We strike the portions of Conditions 8, 20, and 24 requiring defendant to pay for drug and alcohol testing, evaluation, and treatment because they are special conditions that were not orally announced at sentencing. Luby v. State, 648 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Additionally, we strike the portion of Condition 20 relating to alcohol evaluation and treatment because it is a special condition that was not orally announced at sentencing. Sims v. State, 688 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 4, 1996); Dean v. State, 669 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Finally, we strike the imposition of $100 in costs to the FDLE because they were imposed without a request by the FDLE, without documentation, and without considering the defendant’s ability to pay. Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
We affirm the sentences in all other respects.
Affirmed as modified.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ayoub v. State, 901 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…h require Ayoub to submit to and pay [*314] for evaluation and treatment for alcohol and illegal drugs, are special conditions that the trial court must orally pronounce. See Edwards v. State, 814 So. 2d 1197, 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Boyd v. State, 688 So. 2d 959, 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). He argues that the trial court did not orally pronounce the conditions and, therefore, that the conditions must be stricken. In Boyd, this court struck conditions of drug offender probation relating to alcohol evaluation an…
-
Zyburo v. State, 701 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…der of community control which requires appellant to pay for testing for drugs, alcohol, or controlled substances is stricken because it is a special condition and it was not announced by the trial court at the sentencing hearing. See Boyd v. State, 688 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We affirm the judgments and sentences in all other respects. Affirmed as modified. BLUE, A.C.J., FULMER, J., and MALONEY, DENNIS P., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Cole v. State, 932 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…on that must be orally pronounced and noted that “an oral statement placing a defendant on ‘drug probation’ is insufficient to put the defendant on notice of additional drug-related probation conditions.” Id. at 313-314. Similarly, in Boyd v. State, 688 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), the court struck conditions of drug offender probation requiring the defendant to pay for drug testing, evaluation, and treatment, because such conditions were special conditions which required oral pronouncement. Id. at 960. We…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Luby v. State, 648 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Dean v. State, 669 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Reed v. State, 652 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Sims v. State, 688 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Gipson v. State, 670 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)