Eugene Maurice Batie v. State of Florida

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 14, 2026
Docket1D2024-0681
StatusPublished

This text of Eugene Maurice Batie v. State of Florida (Eugene Maurice Batie v. State of Florida) 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
Eugene Maurice Batie v. State of Florida, (Fla. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

BFIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D2024-0681 _____________________________

EUGENE MAURICE BATIE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. David P. Kreider, Judge.

January 14, 2026

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Eugene Maurice Batie, appeals his conviction and sentence for lewd or lascivious exhibition and the trial court’s denial of his rule 3.800(b)(2) motions. We write only to address the portions of Appellant’s motions that requested the trial court to strike special conditions from the written sentencing order.

In its amended sentencing order, the trial court imposed a four percent surcharge on Appellant’s cost of supervision and imposed a condition requiring Appellant to pay his costs “[t]hrough the defendant’s probation officer over the probationary period.” Appellant challenges these conditions, arguing that they could not be imposed in the written sentencing order because they were not orally pronounced at his sentencing hearing.

The State correctly concedes error on the four percent surcharge. That condition must be stricken. Similarly, the requirement to pay “[t]hrough the defendant’s probation officer over the probationary period” is not a general condition and cannot be imposed without oral pronouncement.

For these reasons, we REMAND this matter to the trial court for it to strike the conditions imposing a four percent surcharge and requiring Appellant to pay his costs “[t]hrough the defendant’s probation officer over the probationary period.” We AFFIRM in all other respects.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and ROWE and LONG, JJ., concur.

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Miranda Lee Butson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eugene Maurice Batie v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eugene-maurice-batie-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2026.