Fray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fray v. State

432 So. 2d 764, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19576

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 10, 1983

DocketNo. 82-1112

StatusPublished

This text of 432 So. 2d 764 (Fray 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

Fray v. State, 432 So. 2d 764, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19576 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter. He appeals his judgment and sentence which include an order that he pay costs as a condition of any future parole he might receive. In one of his two points on appeal the appellant correctly contends that the trial court erred by imposing, as a condition of parole, a fine and surcharge, court costs and payment of a lien for court-appointed-counsel fees.

[765]*765Although a court is not precluded from recommending conditions of parole, Brown v. State, 427 So.2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), Monk v. State, 427 So.2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), the Parole and Probation Commission is the only entity vested with the power to establish those conditions. § 947.-13(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1981). Therefore, those portions of the judgment and sentence which impose conditions of any later parole the appellant might receive are stricken. Alexander v. State, 425 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We find no merit in the appellant’s other point on appeal. Therefore his judgment and sentence are affirmed in all other respects.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and RYDER and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter. He appeals his judgment and sentence which include an order that he pay costs as a condition of any future parole he might receive. In one of his two points on appeal the appellant correctly contends that the trial court erred by imposing, as a condition of parole, a fine and surcharge, court costs and payment of a lien for court-appointed-counsel fees.

[765]*765Although a court is not precluded from recommending conditions of parole, Brown v. State, 427 So.2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), Monk v. State, 427 So.2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), the Parole and Probation Commission is the only entity vested with the power to establish those conditions. § 947.-13(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1981). Therefore, those portions of the judgment and sentence which impose conditions of any later parole the appellant might receive are stricken. Alexander v. State, 425 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We find no merit in the appellant’s other point on appeal. Therefore his judgment and sentence are affirmed in all other respects.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and RYDER and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

432 So. 2d 764, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fray-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack