Jami v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jami v. State

677 So. 2d 972, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8333, 1996 WL 441585

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 7, 1996·No. No. 95-02352·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

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.

RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Jami v. State, 677 So. 2d 972, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8333, 1996 WL 441585 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

677 So. 2d 972 (Jami v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related