ROBERT B. TAYLOR, 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.
Robert Taylor appeals his drug trafficking and weapons convictions, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress, admission of certain documents, and his sentence. The court affirmed his convictions but reversed two sentencing errors: the improper imposition of drug offender probation on a firearm conviction and an operating trust fund fee imposed without a finding of ability to pay.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress and admission of documents but reversed on two sentencing issues: drug offender probation is not authorized for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and must be converted to regular probation; and the $100 operating trust fund fee must be stricken because the trial court failed to make a finding that Taylor had the ability to pay it.
[1] Drug offender probation is not authorized for the crime of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
[2] A court may not impose a fine without making a finding that the defendant has the ability to pay.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a defendant may not be sentenced to drug offender probation unless he has been convicted of an enumerated drug offense or has specifically agreed to such probation in a plea agreement”
Establishes the legal rule that drug offender probation is limited to specific drug offenses and cannot be imposed on firearm convictions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaylor was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of cannabis with intent to sell within 1,000 …
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 Possession Of Diazepam cases and more on FLexlaw
Robert B. Taylor timely appeals his convictions and sentences for trafficking in cocaine, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of cannabis with intent to sell within 1,000 feet of a public housing facility, possession of methadone, possession of alprazolam (xanax), and possession of diazepam (valium).1 Taylor contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, abused its discretion in admitting evidence of court documents that prejudicially indicated collateral criminal activity on his part, and erred in denying his motion to correct sentence. We find no error in the denial of Taylor’s motion to suppress or in admission of the documents. Neither issue warrants detailed analysis.2 However, we agree with Taylor that two sentencing errors require correction, and reverse as to those issues. Taylor was sentenced as follows: fifteen years incarceration for the trafficking in cocaine offense, five years incarceration and ten years drug offender probation for the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon offense to run consecutive to count I, and concurrent five years incarceration for the remaining counts — possession of cannabis with intent to sell within 1,000 feet of a public housing facility and the three third degree drug possession offenses. Taylor was given 512 days as credit for time incarcerated before imposition of the sentence as to count I.
Taylor correctly contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to correct sentence because drug offender probation is not authorized for the crime of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See, e.g., Andrew v. State, 988 So.2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (recognizing that a defendant may not be sentenced to drug offender probation unless he has been convicted of an enumerated drug offense or has specifically agreed to such probation in a plea agreement); State v. Roper, 915 So.2d 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (recognizing *312that the drug offender probation statute applies only to violations of statutory sections that prohibit the purchase or possession of certain controlled substances).
Additionally, Taylor challenges the trial court’s imposition of a $100 operating trust fund fee without making a finding that he has the ability to pay the fine. On appeal, the State agreed to have this fee stricken from Taylor’s sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm Taylor’s convictions and reverse with directions that the $100 operating trust fund fee be stricken and that Taylor’s drug offender probation be converted to regular probation. On remand, the trial court may add special conditions of probation related to substance abuse, provided that any special conditions added comply with the requirements of Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla.1993). See Andrew, 988 So.2d at 159. In all other respects, Taylor’s sentences are affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
PALMER, C.J., and MONACO, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fortner v. State, 23 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
-
Jackson v. State, 47 So. 3d 378 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
Authorities Cited
- Biller v. State, 618 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1993)
- Ronald League v. State, 778 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- State v. Roper, 915 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Andrew v. State, 988 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Marsdin v. State, 813 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)