MORICLES JOSEPH, 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 conviction and sentence but remanded for correction of a scrivener's error in the judgment and to strike investigatory costs.
Appellant was convicted of trafficking cocaine, loitering and prowling, and resisting an officer. The written judgment incorrectly listed the resistin…
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 Anders Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
We find no merit in any of the issues raised in this Anders appeal except as concerns a scrivener’s error on the judgment and the assessment of investigatory costs. We therefore affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence without discussion.
In addition to trafficking in cocaine (Count I), appellant was also convicted of loitering and prowling (Count II), and resisting an officer without violence (Count IV). The written judgment, however, reflects the resisting arrest conviction twice, once referring to it as Count II and then referring to it as Count IV, with no mention of the loitering and prowling conviction. We therefore remand for correction of this scrivener’s error so that the judgment lists all three convictions and the appropriate count.
We strike the imposition of $100 in investigatory costs since the State failed to present any supporting documentation for such costs and the trial court failed to follow the procedures set forth in section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1993). See Mickler v. State, 682 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). On remand, the State may again seek to have these costs assessed against appellant following the procedures outlined in section 939.01. Mickler. FRANK and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jodie H. Kokoris v. Zipnick, 738 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…e injunction with regard to the girls, and entered a final judgment denying the aunt’s motion to dissolve the injunction. On appeal, the aunt contends that the trial court erred by denying her motion to dissolve the injunction. In Sharpe v. Sharpe, 695 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), the Fifth District stated a two prong test regarding the relationship between the parties before the court can properly issue a statutory domestic violence injunction. See id. at 1303-04. The first prong requires that the petiti…
-
Bond v. Bond, 917 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…. 2d 369, 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (trial court did not err in its decision that living together for one week was enough time to meet the statutory requirement that the parties are or were residing in the same single dwelling unit); Sharpe v. Sharpe, 695 So. 2d 1302, 1303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (nothing in Ms. Sharpe’s petition which claims that she and the appellant ever resided in the same household and under Florida law, statutory domestic violence between the pair cannot occur). See also Rosenthal v. Roth, 816…
-
Fleshman v. Fleshman, 50 So. 3d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…r from the transcript of the hearing that they did not meet until Fleshman, Jr., was an adult and that they never occupied the same single dwelling unit. As such, statutory domestic violence cannot occur between them. See generally Sharpe v. Sharpe, 695 So. 2d 1302, 1304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (“[Tjhere is nothing in Ms. Sharpe’s petition which claims that she and the appellant ever resided in the same household. Under the current law, statutory domestic violence between the pair has not occurred and cannot occur…
Authorities Cited
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Mickler v. State, 682 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)