Stanley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stanley v. State

701 So. 2d 909, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13346, 1997 WL 734915

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 1, 1997

DocketNo. 96-909

StatusPublished

This text of 701 So. 2d 909 (Stanley 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

Stanley v. State, 701 So. 2d 909, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13346, 1997 WL 734915 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, the public defender has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although afforded an opportunity to do so, appellant has elected not to file a brief in proper person. Having reviewed the entire record, we agree that no error requiring reversal of either the convictions or sentences occurred. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions, and the sentences imposed. However, we strike, because it was not orally pronounced, that portion of the order (entered on February 27,1996) placing appellant on probation following completion of his sentences which directs that appellant shall be responsible for the costs of mandated drug testing and evaluation. See Curry v. State, 682 So.2d 1091 (Fla.1996). We also strike that portion of the order which imposed a fine, because the statutory authority therefor is not cited. See Williams v. State, 674 So.2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). On remand, the trial court may reimpose the fine, provided that it cites the statutory authority therefor.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, the public defender has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although afforded an opportunity to do so, appellant has elected not to file a brief in proper person. Having reviewed the entire record, we agree that no error requiring reversal of either the convictions or sentences occurred. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions, and the sentences imposed. However, we strike, because it was not orally pronounced, that portion of the order (entered on February 27,1996) placing appellant on probation following completion of his sentences which directs that appellant shall be responsible for the costs of mandated drug testing and evaluation. See Curry v. State, 682 So.2d 1091 (Fla.1996). We also strike that portion of the order which imposed a fine, because the statutory authority therefor is not cited. See Williams v. State, 674 So.2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). On remand, the trial court may reimpose the fine, provided that it cites the statutory authority therefor.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

701 So. 2d 909, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13346, 1997 WL 734915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack