Payton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Payton v. State

735 So. 2d 521, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5813, 1999 WL 279805

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 7, 1999

DocketNo. 96-03127

StatusPublished

This text of 735 So. 2d 521 (Payton 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

Payton v. State, 735 So. 2d 521, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5813, 1999 WL 279805 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PATTERSON, Judge.

Bruce Payton appealed from the denial of his motion to suppress and the imposition of court costs. The trial court had withheld adjudication of guilt and imposed costs without probation or other further disposition. On appeal, relying on our pri- or decision in Martin v. State, 600 So.2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), we held that an order [522]*522withholding adjudication without imposing probation is not an appealable order. See Payton v. State, 698 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Therefore, we dismissed Pay-ton’s appeal and, on certiorari review, struck the costs. See id.

On November 5, 1998, our supreme court disapproved Martin in State v. Schultz, 720 So.2d 247 (Fla.1998), and held that an order withholding adjudication of guilt without imposing probation is an ap-pealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(1)(C). Thus, in Payton v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly S101, 732 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1999), the supreme court quashed our decision and remanded to this court for further proceedings.

We now review Payton’s claims on their merits and affirm the trial court in all respects, including the imposition of court costs in the amount of $253.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur.

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

PATTERSON, Judge.

Bruce Payton appealed from the denial of his motion to suppress and the imposition of court costs. The trial court had withheld adjudication of guilt and imposed costs without probation or other further disposition. On appeal, relying on our pri- or decision in Martin v. State, 600 So.2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), we held that an order [522]*522withholding adjudication without imposing probation is not an appealable order. See Payton v. State, 698 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Therefore, we dismissed Pay-ton’s appeal and, on certiorari review, struck the costs. See id.

On November 5, 1998, our supreme court disapproved Martin in State v. Schultz, 720 So.2d 247 (Fla.1998), and held that an order withholding adjudication of guilt without imposing probation is an ap-pealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(1)(C). Thus, in Payton v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly S101, 732 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1999), the supreme court quashed our decision and remanded to this court for further proceedings.

We now review Payton’s claims on their merits and affirm the trial court in all respects, including the imposition of court costs in the amount of $253.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

735 So. 2d 521, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5813, 1999 WL 279805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payton-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack