ALPHONSO CHANDLER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) Judge.
Appellant appeals the judgment and sentence resulting from his plea of nolo con-tendere to possession of a controlled substance in excess of twenty grams.
After a review of the record and the law, we find no error in the judgment and sentence. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
However, we do find error in the court’s assessment of $220.00 costs against appellant pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), without prior determination of appellant’s ability to pay. See Blanton v. State, 501 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We, therefore, strike the assessment of costs, but otherwise affirm the judgment and sentence.
DANAHY, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.S.R. v. State, 596 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…8 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); W.J. v. State, 485 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Lennear v. State, 424 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Kelly v. State, 397 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Ridley v. State, 407 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Duncan v. State, 503 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Repetti v. State, 456 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Victory v. State, 422 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Hudson v. State, 408 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), G.M. v. State, 410 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). As explained in Rid…
-
Shearer v. State, 582 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…ohibits conviction for both theft and dealing in stolen property “in connection with one scheme or course of conduct.” See Ridley v. State, 407 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). However, the two counts must involve the same property. Duncan v. State, 503 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Here, the dealing count charged appellant with selling a stolen camera, and the petit theft count involved a suitcase and clothing as well as the camera. Since the two crimes involved different properties, section 812.025 does…
-
Blount v. State, 641 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…property, the trial court's oral ‘‘merger” requires no action by this court. We note, however, that this merger left written judgments of conviction on both offenses. This procedure does not comply with the applicable case law. See Duncan v. State, 503 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blanton v. State, 501 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)