JEFFREY CHARLES COOK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Anders V. California cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we agree with the State that the written amended sentence does not conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence. We do not agree, however, that the sentence either as orally pronounced or as written in the amended sentence conforms to the plea agreement of a forty-year prison term followed by ten years’ probation for four counts of solicitations to commit murder in the first degree. We therefore affirm the appellant’s judgment in case number 90-19437, but reverse the amended sentence and remand the case for the sentence to be restructured in accordance with the plea agreement of a forty-year prison term followed by ten years’ probation.
Convictions affirmed; sentence reversed and remanded with instructions.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
State v. Chuck Junior Williams, 712 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1998)…PAY FOR DRUG TESTING BE TREATED AS A GENERAL CONDITION OF PROBATION FOR WHICH NOTICE IS PROVIDED BY SECTION 948.09(6), FLORIDA STATUTES (1995), OR SHOULD IT BE TREATED AS A SPECIAL CONDITION THAT REQUIRES ORAL ANNOUNCEMENT? [*763] Williams v. State, 700 So. 2d 750, 751-52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed herein, we hold that the requirement that a defendant pay for drug testing is a special condition of probation which the trial court must pron…1 / 2
-
Meade v. State, 799 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…oblems was insufficient to establish a willful violation of the conditions of his probation. Moreover, where a special condition of probation requiring a probationer to pay for testing is not orally pronounced, it is invalid. See Williams v. State, 700 So. 2d 750, 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), approved, State v. Williams, 712 So. 2d 762, 764 (Fla.1998); see also Banks v. State, 708 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Ramos v. State, 696 So. 2d 461, 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). If polygraph testing was not required by the…
-
Repoleon Porchia v. State, 705 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…or such testing and the Second District has certified the question whether requiring the probationer to pay for random drug testing is actually a general condition or rather a special condition that requires oral announcement. See Williams v. State, 700 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Huffv. State, 700 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Smith v. State, 702 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We join the Second District Court of Appeal in certifying the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great p…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)