MICHAEL ALFONSO JEFFERSON, 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 probation conditions, court costs, and attorney's fees were improperly imposed because they were not orally announced or statutorily authorized.
Michael Jefferson appealed the denial of his motion to suppress and challenged certain probation conditions, court costs, and attorney's fees imposed …
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 Oral Pronouncement Of Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.
Michael Alfonso Jefferson challenges the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm. See, e.g., State v. Leyva, 599 So. 2d 691, 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); State v. Carrs, 568 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Jefferson also argues and we agree that the trial court erred in imposing probation conditions, certain court costs and attorney’s fees. Special conditions of probation must be orally announced at sentencing. Hamilton v. State, 653 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Because they were not announced, we strike special condition three prohibiting the possession of weapons, that portion of special condition five prohibiting the excessive use of intoxicants, and that portion of special condition eight requiring Jefferson to pay for random testing. See Hamilton.
The trial court faded to announce the statutory authority for costs; even the written judgment lacks citations to authorizing statutes. Accordingly, we strike the court costs of $288. See Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc). In addition, we strike the public defender’s lien of $300 because the trial court failed to inform Jefferson that he could contest the amount. See Drinnon v. State, 598 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). On remand, the state may seek reimposition of appropriate costs and fees. See Reyes.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
LAZZARA and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cintron v. U.S. Attorney General, 882 F.3d 1380 (11th Cir. 2018)…ug in specified quantities."); Cogbill v. State , 940 So. 2d 537, 539 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) ("[ Section 893.135(f) ] sets forth a number of alternate forms of conduct, any of which constitute the proscribed offense."); McCluster v. State , 681 So. 2d 716, 717 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996) ("Trafficking in illegal drugs can be proven in a variety of ways: sale, possession, manufacture, delivery and bringing into this state."); Ramos v. State , 529 So. 2d 807, 808 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988) ("[T]r…
Authorities Cited
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Drinnon v. State, 598 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- State v. Wilfredo Leyva, 599 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Dolphis A. Hamilton v. State, 653 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- State v. Carrs, 568 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)