Douglas v. State
627 So. 2d 30, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11439, 1993 WL 461957
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 10, 1993·No. No. 93-00183·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
We affirm appellant’s convictions and the order placing him on probation following his plea of nolo contendere. We strike that portion of the judgment which requires payments to the “Court Improvement Fund” and “Hillsborough County Drug Fund,” without prejudice to the state to seek reimposition of these non-statutory costs after proper notice to appellant. See, e.g., Alfonso v. State, 595 So.2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Douglas v. State, 627 So. 2d 30, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11439, 1993 WL 461957 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).
627 So. 2d 30 (Douglas v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Reyes v. State
655 So. 2d 111 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)