JOE LOUIS FRAZIER, 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 the written sentencing order improperly imposed restitution and a consecutive sentence to an undetermined future sentence, contrary to the oral pronouncement.
Defendant was convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer. The trial court orally pronounced no restitution and a sentence consecutive to an und…
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 Sentencing Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joe Louis Frazier (Frazier) appeals his judgment and sentence for battery on a law enforcement officer, committed on August 4, 1995, in Clay County. We affirm in all respects except as to two conditions of the sentence.
We reverse Frazier’s sentence to the extent that it imposes restitution. The trial court orally pronounced that there would be no restitution in the ease, but that court costs of $255 would be imposed. The written sentencing order however imposes restitution in the amount of $255, rather than costs. We therefore reverse this portion of the sentence, and remand without prejudice to the reimposition of statutorily authorized costs after proper notice and hearing, provided that the written order recites the statutory authority for any costs imposed. Taylor v. State, 672 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
We also reverse that portion of the orally pronounced sentence which imposes the instant sentence consecutive to an undetermined future sentence. Currelly v. State, 678 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We note however that the written sentence omits any such error and we affirm on that basis.
We accordingly affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for consistent proceedings.
WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reynaldo Antonio Aviles v. State, 165 So. 3d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…correct that it is improper to require a probationer, without exception, to maintain full-time employment as a condition of probation because factors out of the probationer’s control could prevent completion of this requirement. See Miller v. State, 691 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Dela-Cruz v. State, 687 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); White v. State, 619 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Reed v. State, 865 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). A probationer can be ordered to either maintain full-time employment or…
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 672 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Currelly v. State, 678 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)