BARON WALKER, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction for cocaine possession where drugs were in plain view, but struck certain sentencing conditions that were not orally pronounced at sentencing.
The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress where drugs were in plain view on the ground below the vehicle door from which the defendant exited, and sentencing conditions requiring payment for drug testing and drug/alcohol evaluation were properly struck as not orally pronounced.
[1] Sentencing conditions requiring payment for drug testing and drug/alcohol evaluation must be struck when not orally pronounced by the trial court at sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“there was an adequate factual basis for the trial court's determination that the drugs were in plain view on the ground below the door from which Walker exited the vehicle after it had stopped and occupants other than Walker had fled”
Court's explanation for upholding the denial of the motion to suppress
Baron Walker was charged with cocaine possession after drugs were found in plain view on the ground below a vehicle door from which he exited after th…
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 Sentencing Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Baron Walker appeals from a judgment and sentence stemming from his possession of cocaine. He entered a no contest plea reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. We have reviewed the events associated with his motion to suppress and we have concluded that the trial court did not err in its disposition of that motion; there was an adequate factual basis for the trial court’s determination that the drugs were in plain view on the ground below the door from which Walker exited the vehicle after it had stopped and occupants other than Walker had fled. This matter was presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Our review has revealed no error other than the trial court’s failure orally to pronounce the special conditions embodied in its ultímate judgment.
Thus, we strike that portion of Condition A requiring Walker to pay for drug or alcohol testing. See Williams v. State, 700 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), review granted, 707 So. 2d 1127 (Fla.1998). We also strike Condition C, calling for drug/alcohol evaluation and treatment. See Norton v. State, 681 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The judgment and sentence are otherwise affirmed.
FRANK, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Cook v. State, 700 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Norton v. State, 681 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)