Jami v. State
This text of 677 So. 2d 972 (Jami 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.
Opinion
We reject the appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and, therefore, affirm his judgment and sentences. We strike, however, the words “and pay for” from condition 8 of appellant’s orders of probation. Luby v. State, 648 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We also strike the $33 cosVfine, which was imposed without the citation of statutory authority, without prejudice to the state seeking re-imposition on remand. Coby v. State, 666 So.2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
677 So. 2d 972, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8333, 1996 WL 441585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jami-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.