Crews v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crews v. State

658 So. 2d 616, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7743, 1995 WL 421396

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 19, 1995

DocketNo. 94-01728

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 658 So. 2d 616 (Crews 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

Crews v. State, 658 So. 2d 616, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7743, 1995 WL 421396 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PATTERSON, Judge.

The appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for armed burglary and grand theft. We find no error requiring reversal with regard to the appellant’s convictions and therefore affirm. However, since the trial court improperly imposed certain costs and probation conditions, we strike those portions of the appellant’s sentence.

The following special conditions of probation were not announced at sentencing and must be stricken: the portion of condition 3 which prohibits the appellant from possessing or carrying weapons, Fitts v. State, 649 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); condition 5 which prohibits the use of intoxicants to excess, Tomlinson v. State, 645 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); and condition 8 which requires the appellant to pay for random drug testing, Williams v. State, 655 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

The $2 cost the trial court imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993), was not announced at sentencing and must be stricken. Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We also strike the $33 cosVfine since the trial court failed to cite statutory authority for the cost. Barnes v. State, 658 So.2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Affirmed in part. Reversed in part.

THREADGILL, C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.

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