Muro v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Muro v. State

589 So. 2d 1048, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13265, 1991 WL 272644

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 18, 1991

DocketNo. 90-02197

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 589 So. 2d 1048 (Muro 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

Muro v. State, 589 So. 2d 1048, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13265, 1991 WL 272644 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm defendant’s conviction for attempted possession of cocaine.

However, we agree with defendant that conditions 11, 12, 13, and 18 of the conditions of probation imposed in his sentence had not been orally pronounced by the trial court and are, therefore, not properly a part of the sentence. See Zachary v. State, 559 So.2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

We do not find merit in defendant’s remaining contention concerning the award of fees and costs which had been agreed to by defendant as a part of his plea bargain.

The conviction is affirmed. The sentence is remanded for correction in accordance with this opinion.

RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.

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