CURTIS RANDALL WEBER, 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.
Curtis Weber appealed his convictions for marijuana and paraphernalia possession after entering a nolo contendere plea. The court affirmed the convictions but struck several probation conditions that were not orally pronounced at sentencing or were otherwise legally deficient, and struck an imposed court cost.
The court affirmed the convictions but struck: (1) portions of probation condition (4) prohibiting weapons not enumerated in statute and allowing felon possession with probation officer consent; (2) portions of condition (7) regarding intoxicant use and vague drug possession prohibitions; (3) the portion of condition (12) requiring the appellant to pay for testing; (4) condition (13) regarding literacy/diploma requirements; and (5) the $2 court cost under section 943.25(13).
[1] A special condition of probation that is not orally pronounced at sentencing must be stricken.
[2] A probation condition prohibiting the possession of drugs or narcotics unless prescribed by a physician is too vague and 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 that portion of probation condition (4) which prohibits the carrying of weapons other than those enumerated in section 790.23, Florida Statutes (1993), since it is a special condition of probation that was not orally pronounced at sentencing.”
Establishes the requirement that special probation conditions must be orally pronounced at sentencing to be valid.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWeber entered a nolo contendere plea to possession of marijuana and possession of paraphernalia in violation of Florida Statutes sections 893.13 and 8…
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 Discretionary Court Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Curtis Randall Weber, challenges the trial court’s judgments and sentences which were imposed after he entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges of possession of marijuana and possession of paraphernalia, in violation of sections 893.13 and 893.147, Florida Statutes (1993). The appellant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to serve two years probation for the possession of marijuana charge, to time served for the possession of paraphernalia charge, and to court costs. This timely appeal followed.
Although we affirm the appellant’s convictions, we find that the trial court erred in imposing certain conditions of probation and a $2 court cost.
We strike that portion of probation condition (4) which prohibits the carrying of weapons other than those enumerated in sec tion 790.23, Florida Statutes (1993), since it is a special condition of probation that was not orally pronounced at sentencing. Malone v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Furthermore, we strike that portion of the condition which implies that a felon can possess weapons otherwise prohibited with the consent of his probation officer. Malone, 652 So. 2d at 903.
We also strike that portion of probation condition (7) which provides that “you will not use intoxicants to excess” since it is a special condition of probation which was not orally pronounced at sentencing. Parsons v. State, 650 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). That portion of the condition which prohibits the appellant from possessing “any drugs or narcotics unless prescribed by a physician” is also stricken since it is too vague. Parsons, 650 So. 2d at 177.
Next, we strike the last sentence of probation condition (12) which requires the appellant to “pay for” random urinalysis, breathalyzer, or blood tests since that portion of the condition is a special condition of probation which was not orally pronounced at sentencing. See Cumbie v. State, 597 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Probation condition (13) requires the appellant to obtain, or make a good faith effort to obtain, either literacy skills or a high school diploma if the appellant does not possess a high school diploma, a general equivalency diploma, or have basic or functional literacy skills. We strike that condition since, as conceded by the state, the appellant has already obtained his high school diploma and is literate.
We also strike the $2 cost imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993), for criminal justice education programs and training courses, since it is a discretionary cost and the trial court did not give the appellant an opportunity to be heard. Faulk v. State, 661 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
We, accordingly, affirm the convictions but strike probation condition (13), the above-mentioned portions of probation conditions (4), (7), and (12), and the $2 court cost.
Affirmed as modified.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Navarrion Johnson v. State, 701 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…te, 652 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Reed v. State, 652 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Emond v. State, 652 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), quashed, 668 So. 2d 599 (Fla.1996); Stark v. State, 650 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). . See Weber v. State, 691 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Levely v. State, 685 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Cooper v. State, 660 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Williams v. State, 658 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Hall v. State, 661 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Parsons v. State, 650…
Authorities Cited
- Guinn v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Cumbie v. State, 597 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Parsons v. State, 650 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Faulk v. State, 661 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)