Fruggiero v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fruggiero v. State

141 So. 3d 261, 2014 WL 3031526, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10397

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 7, 2014

DocketNos. 1D13-1572, 1D13-1573, 1D13-1574

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 141 So. 3d 261 (Fruggiero 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

Fruggiero v. State, 141 So. 3d 261, 2014 WL 3031526, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10397 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), our independent review of the record in each case reveals no reversible error. However, as the state concedes, the trial court erred by imposing a special condition of probation requiring appellant to pay for the cost of drug testing when such a condition was not orally pronounced at sentencing. See Clussman v. State, 89 So.3d 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). This issue was properly preserved by appellate counsel through a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), which was deemed denied when not timely ruled upon.

Accordingly, the judgments and sentences on appeal are AFFIRMED. On remand, however, the trial court is directed to strike from the orders of probation the special condition requiring appellant to pay the cost of drug testing.

LEWIS, C.J., WOLF and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), our independent review of the record in each case reveals no reversible error. However, as the state concedes, the trial court erred by imposing a special condition of probation requiring appellant to pay for the cost of drug testing when such a condition was not orally pronounced at sentencing. See Clussman v. State, 89 So.3d 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). This issue was properly preserved by appellate counsel through a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), which was deemed denied when not timely ruled upon.

Accordingly, the judgments and sentences on appeal are AFFIRMED. On remand, however, the trial court is directed to strike from the orders of probation the special condition requiring appellant to pay the cost of drug testing.

LEWIS, C.J., WOLF and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 So. 3d 261, 2014 WL 3031526, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fruggiero-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack