Dykes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dykes v. State

681 So. 2d 714, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13185, 1995 WL 756583

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 22, 1995

DocketNo. 95-00257

StatusPublished

This text of 681 So. 2d 714 (Dykes 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

Dykes v. State, 681 So. 2d 714, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13185, 1995 WL 756583 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Delbert Ray Dykes appeals his convictions for criminal mischief and shooting/throwing a deadly missile at a dwelling. We affirm the conviction but strike certain costs and probation conditions that were improperly imposed.

Because it is a discretionary cost that was not properly announced at sentencing, we strike $2 assessed per section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1991). See Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We also strike the following special conditions of probation that were not orally announced at sentencing: that portion of condition five prohibiting the excessive use of intoxicants, that portion of condition eight requiring Dykes to pay for random testing, see Malone v. State, 652 So.2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and condition eleven requiring an hourly accounting of Dykes’ activities, see Vinyard v. State, 586 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

Convictions affirmed; certain costs and probation conditions stricken.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and BLUE and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Delbert Ray Dykes appeals his convictions for criminal mischief and shooting/throwing a deadly missile at a dwelling. We affirm the conviction but strike certain costs and probation conditions that were improperly imposed.

Because it is a discretionary cost that was not properly announced at sentencing, we strike $2 assessed per section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1991). See Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We also strike the following special conditions of probation that were not orally announced at sentencing: that portion of condition five prohibiting the excessive use of intoxicants, that portion of condition eight requiring Dykes to pay for random testing, see Malone v. State, 652 So.2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and condition eleven requiring an hourly accounting of Dykes’ activities, see Vinyard v. State, 586 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

Convictions affirmed; certain costs and probation conditions stricken.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and BLUE and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

681 So. 2d 714, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13185, 1995 WL 756583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dykes-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack