Godwin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Godwin v. State

676 So. 2d 1012, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6483, 1996 WL 339081

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 21, 1996

DocketNo. 95-01068

StatusPublished

This text of 676 So. 2d 1012 (Godwin 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

Godwin v. State, 676 So. 2d 1012, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6483, 1996 WL 339081 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Judge.

John Godwin pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine and marijuana and was placed on probation for one year. He now challenges his judgment and sentence asserting a Fourth Amendment violation and procedural errors at sentencing. We affirm the judgment and sentence but we strike certain costs and conditions of probation.

The arresting officer described at the suppression hearing the events precipitating Godwin’s arrest. Godwin was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation on a late evening in November of 1994. The driver was arrested on an outstanding warrant and he requested that Godwin be allowed to take possession of the vehicle. Godwin agreed, produced his driver’s license, and began a field sobriety test. The sobriety test was interrupted, however, when Godwin repeatedly placed his hands in his pockets. The officer observed a bulge in one of the pockets. With Godwin’s consent, the officer conducted a pat-down revealing the presence of a hard object, possibly a weapon. When Godwin consented to a further search of the pocket, contraband was found.

Based on the officer’s testimony, the trial court determined that both the encounter and the search of Godwin’s pocket were consensual. The trial court was entitled, as it did, to discount Godwin’s discrepant testimony as less credible, noting, as one factor, his admitted intoxication on the night of his arrest. See Maurer v. State, 668 So.2d 1077, 1078-79 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Brown v. [1013]*1013State, 352 So.2d 60, 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). We decline to disturb the trial court’s ruling and affirm Godwin’s judgment.

We do, however, strike the following costs and conditions of probation: a $12 cost for the STEP program imposed without citation to statutory authority, see Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); a $100 assessment for the FDLE trust fund imposed without documentation or consideration of Godwin’s ability to pay, see Rausch v. State, 664 So.2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); that portion of condition four which suggests that a convicted felon may possess a firearm with the consent of his probation officer, see Fitts v. State, 649 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); finally, that part of condition fourteen requiring Godwin to pay for any drug and alcohol evaluations for lack of oral pronouncement, see Nank v. State, 646 So.2d 762 (Fla. 2D DCA 1994).

Accordingly, we affirm Godwin’s conviction and sentence but strike the costs and conditions identified above.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.

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

FRANK, Judge.

John Godwin pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine and marijuana and was placed on probation for one year. He now challenges his judgment and sentence asserting a Fourth Amendment violation and procedural errors at sentencing. We affirm the judgment and sentence but we strike certain costs and conditions of probation.

The arresting officer described at the suppression hearing the events precipitating Godwin’s arrest. Godwin was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation on a late evening in November of 1994. The driver was arrested on an outstanding warrant and he requested that Godwin be allowed to take possession of the vehicle. Godwin agreed, produced his driver’s license, and began a field sobriety test. The sobriety test was interrupted, however, when Godwin repeatedly placed his hands in his pockets. The officer observed a bulge in one of the pockets. With Godwin’s consent, the officer conducted a pat-down revealing the presence of a hard object, possibly a weapon. When Godwin consented to a further search of the pocket, contraband was found.

Based on the officer’s testimony, the trial court determined that both the encounter and the search of Godwin’s pocket were consensual. The trial court was entitled, as it did, to discount Godwin’s discrepant testimony as less credible, noting, as one factor, his admitted intoxication on the night of his arrest. See Maurer v. State, 668 So.2d 1077, 1078-79 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Brown v. [1013]*1013State, 352 So.2d 60, 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). We decline to disturb the trial court’s ruling and affirm Godwin’s judgment.

We do, however, strike the following costs and conditions of probation: a $12 cost for the STEP program imposed without citation to statutory authority, see Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); a $100 assessment for the FDLE trust fund imposed without documentation or consideration of Godwin’s ability to pay, see Rausch v. State, 664 So.2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); that portion of condition four which suggests that a convicted felon may possess a firearm with the consent of his probation officer, see Fitts v. State, 649 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); finally, that part of condition fourteen requiring Godwin to pay for any drug and alcohol evaluations for lack of oral pronouncement, see Nank v. State, 646 So.2d 762 (Fla. 2D DCA 1994).

Accordingly, we affirm Godwin’s conviction and sentence but strike the costs and conditions identified above.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

676 So. 2d 1012, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6483, 1996 WL 339081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godwin-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack