JUAN C. MARTIN, 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 certain conditions of probation and investigative costs were improperly imposed and must be stricken.
Juan C. Martin appealed his final judgment and sentence for aggravated battery and assault. The appeal challenged specific conditions of probation and…
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 Felon In Possession Of A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Juan C. Martin appeals the final judgment and sentence in this aggravated battery and assault ease. We strike two conditions of probation and the order for investigative costs. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment and sentence.
Although condition (4) of Martin’s probation, which prohibits him from possessing, carrying, or owning any weapon or firearm without the consent of his probation officer, is not a special condition of probation, it is inappropriate to impose it because a convicted felon cannot possess, carry, or own a firearm. See Curry v. State, 656 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), review dismissed, 682 So. 2d 1091 (Fla.1996). Accordingly, we strike that portion of condition (4) which allows Martin to have a firearm with the consent of his probation officer. Additionally, condition (9) requiring Martin to pay for random drug testing is a special condition of probation which must be orally pronounced. See Malone v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Therefore, we strike that portion of condition (9) requiring Martin to pay for the random drug testing.
Finally, the court erred by imposing $80 for investigative costs and fees for prosecution because the court failed to cite statutory authority for these fees. Furthermore, the prosecutor failed to document the investigative costs. See Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111, 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc). Therefore, we strike the $80 fee.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Houston v. State, 701 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…irmed. PARKER, C.J., and DANAHY, CAMPBELL, SCHOONOVER, FRANK, THREADGILL, PATTERSON, BLUE, LAZZARA, FULMER, QUINCE, WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). . Martin v. State, 696 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Williams v. State, 681 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Felix v. State, 22 Fla.L.Weekly D1458, - So. 2d -, 1997 WL 318053 (Fla. 2d DCA June 13, 1997). . Earlier case law refers to a completely different condition four, which state…
Authorities Cited
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Guinn v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Curry v. State, 682 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 1996)
- Curry v. State, 656 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)