JERRY BANKS, 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 while the conviction is affirmed, certain costs and probation conditions must be stricken because they were not properly imposed or announced at sentencing.
The defendant was convicted and sentenced, with the trial court imposing investigative costs and special probation conditions. The defendant's counsel…
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 Costs Of Prosecution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal brought pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we have found no error affecting Banks’ conviction; however, we agree with Banks’ counsel that one cost and three probation conditions must be stricken.
The trial court ordered Banks to pay $100 for the investigative costs of the Sarasota Sheriffs Office. Section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that the costs of prosecution shall be imposed “if requested and documented by such agencies.” At the sentencing hearing, there was no request for this cost by the sheriffs office and there was no documentation presented supporting the cost. Consequently, we strike this cost. See Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Additionally, the trial court improperly imposed special conditions of probation without announcing these conditions at sentencing. This was error. See Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We strike that portion of probation condition 12 which requires Banks to pay for random drug, alcohol and controlled substance tests, because it was not orally pronounced at sentencing. See Williams v. State, 700 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We also strike condition 13 which requires Banks to make a good faith effort to obtain either literacy skills or a high school diploma, because this is a special condition of probation. See Powell v. State, 681 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
Accordingly, we affirm Banks’ judgments and sentences, but we strike one cost and three probation conditions.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meade v. State, 799 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ion 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 court when imposing probation, a probationer’s refusal to submit to a polygraph test when subsequently ordered to do so as part…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Cook v. State, 700 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Powell v. State, 681 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)