Spells v. State

939 So. 2d 1091, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14910, 2006 WL 2547818
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 6, 2006·No. No. 2D05-1883·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Bernard Spells ■ appeals the judgments and sentences that were imposed on him after a jury found him guilty of trafficking in heroin, possession of cocaine, and possession of marijuana. Mr. Spells argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained after the execution of a search warrant. We conclude that the search warrant was properly issued and that the trial court correctly denied Mr. Spells’ motion to suppress. Accordingly, we affirm Mr. Spells’ judgments and sentences.

In a separate issue, Mr. Spells argues that a $2 cost item assessed in accordance with section 938.15, Florida Statutes (2004), should be stricken because it may be assessed only for a violation of a county or municipal ordinance. Mr. Spells preserved this issue by filing an appropriate motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). We affirm the imposition of the $2 in costs under the statute. See Kimball v. State, 933 So.2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Affirmed.

WHATLEY, KELLY, and WALLACE, JJ., concur.

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

Spells v. State, 939 So. 2d 1091, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14910, 2006 WL 2547818 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

939 So. 2d 1091 (Spells v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kimball v. State
933 So. 2d 1285 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)