DELLA A. HALL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1997-04-11
No. 95-03462
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
691 So. 2d 570 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1997)

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.


Holding

The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress and convictions, but struck certain costs and a probation condition due to error.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant pleaded no contest to drug charges, reserving the right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress. She also appealed the imposition of …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant pleaded no contest to three charges of possession of illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia, reserving the issue of the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress. She then appealed her conviction as well as the imposition of certain costs and a condition of her probation. We affirm the denial of the motion to suppress without further discussion. The state concedes error on the costs and probation condition issues.

The trial court erred by imposing certain discretionary costs in the written order on costs without either pronouncing them or citing statutory authority for them at the sentencing hearing. Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Thus, we strike from the written order the $2 cost imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993), the $50 cost imposed pursuant to section 939.01, and the public defender’s fee of $625 imposed pursuant to section 27.56.

The trial court also erred by requiring a special condition of probation that the appellant pay for drug and alcohol evaluation without first giving her notice and an opportunity to object at the sentencing hearing. Luby v. State, 648 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We, therefore, strike this requirement from the order of probation.

Convictions and sentence affirmed except as noted above.

PATTERSON, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw