Bowen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bowen v. State

702 So. 2d 298, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13936

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 1997

DocketNos. 96-2110, 96-2112

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 702 So. 2d 298 (Bowen 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.

Bluebook

Bowen v. State, 702 So. 2d 298, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13936 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, the appellant challenges costs and a special condition of probation imposed upon his sentencing in April 1996. We strike that portion of the order by which the appellant is directed to pay $100 to the Drug Abuse Trust Fund and $100 to the Florida Crime Lab because the order fails to cite statutory authority for those costs. See, e.g., Fisher v. State, 697 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Bizzard v. State, 668 So.2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 675 So.2d 926 (Fla.1996); Madison v. State, 664 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). These discretionary costs may be reimposed upon proper citation, notice and an opportunity to be heard. See id.

We also strike the special condition requiring the appellant to pay the costs of drug testing and treatment because the trial court failed to orally pronounce that condition, and it may not be reimposed. See Fisher, 697 So.2d at 1292; Justice v. State, 674 So.2d 123 (Fla.1996).

The orders appealed are otherwise affirmed.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, the appellant challenges costs and a special condition of probation imposed upon his sentencing in April 1996. We strike that portion of the order by which the appellant is directed to pay $100 to the Drug Abuse Trust Fund and $100 to the Florida Crime Lab because the order fails to cite statutory authority for those costs. See, e.g., Fisher v. State, 697 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Bizzard v. State, 668 So.2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 675 So.2d 926 (Fla.1996); Madison v. State, 664 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). These discretionary costs may be reimposed upon proper citation, notice and an opportunity to be heard. See id.

We also strike the special condition requiring the appellant to pay the costs of drug testing and treatment because the trial court failed to orally pronounce that condition, and it may not be reimposed. See Fisher, 697 So.2d at 1292; Justice v. State, 674 So.2d 123 (Fla.1996).

The orders appealed are otherwise affirmed.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

702 So. 2d 298, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowen-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack