GARY ALTMAN, 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.
Gary Altman appealed an order denying his motion to suppress evidence and challenged the inclusion of a statutory surcharge in his sentence for drug trafficking. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the suppression motion and the surcharge, but remanded for clarification of the surcharge's statutory basis in the written sentence.
The court affirmed the denial of the suppression motion, finding competent, substantial evidence that officers obtained voluntary consent without misrepresentation or trickery. The court also affirmed the inclusion of the mandatory statutory surcharge despite lack of oral pronouncement, but remanded for a corrected written sentence specifying the statutory bases for the $2,500 surcharge and $50,000 fine.
[1] A defendant may reserve the right to appeal a dispositive order denying a motion to suppress before entering pleas.
[2] A voluntary consent to search is not invalidated by the absence of misrepresentation or trickery by investigating officers.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Competent, substantial evidence exists to support the conclusion that the investigating officers did not engage in any misrepresentation or trickery to obtain the defendant's voluntary consent to the search which led to the illegal items' discovery.”
Establishes the court's finding that the search was lawful based on voluntary consent without officer misconduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAltman was charged with trafficking in hydrocodone (4-14 grams), possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of cannabis. Investigating officers …
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 Appeal Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals an order denying his motion to suppress. We affirm. We find that the defendant reserved the right to appeal this dispositive order before entering his pleas to trafficking in hydroco-done (4 grams or more, but less than 14 grams), possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of cannabis. We also find that the circuit court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Competent, substantial evidence exists to support the conclusion that the investigating officers did not engage in any misrepresentation or trickery to obtain the defendant’s voluntary consent to the search which led to the illegal items’ discovery. We further find nothing on the face of the record suggesting that the defendant’s counsel was ineffective in responding to any of the state’s evidence and arguments.
The defendant also appeals the inclusion of a statutory surcharge in the written sentence on the trafficking charge. We affirm the inclusion of that surcharge even though it was not orally pronounced. See Johnson v. State, 689 So.2d 1124, 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“Because the surcharge is mandatory, the trial court was not obligated to announce it orally to include it in the written sentence.”), quashed on other grounds, 712 So.2d 380 (Fla.1998); but see Benton v. State, 708 So.2d 1002, 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (striking surcharge that was imposed without oral pronouncement). However, the circuit court must enter a corrected written sentence reflecting that the $2,500 surcharge was imposed pursuant to section 938.04, Florida Statutes (2007), and that the $50,000 fine was imposed pursuant to section 893.135(l)(c)l.a., Florida Statutes (2007). The entry of a corrected written sentence is a ministerial act which does not require the defendant’s presence. Williams v. State, 697 So.2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
Affirmed with remand for correction of sentence.
STEVENSON and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tommie v. Johnson, 712 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1998)
- Williams v. State, 697 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Frank v. State, 697 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Benton v. State, 708 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Rochetti v. State, 689 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Tommie v. Johnson, 689 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)