Armstrong v. State
This text of 923 So. 2d 1252 (Armstrong v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
We affirm Virginia Armstrong’s conviction for trafficking in hydrocodone. See §§ 893.03(c); .135(l)(c)(l), (6), Fla. Stat. (2002). We strike the $150 cost imposed for “CFF” because the circuit court did not cite any statutory authority for this cost. See Cruz v. State, 830 So.2d 892 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2002). Armstrong preserved this issue by filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). The circuit court did not rule on her motion within sixty days, so it is deemed denied. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B).
Conviction affirmed, cost stricken.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
923 So. 2d 1252, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 4239, 2006 WL 740934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.