State v. Thompson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Thompson

542 So. 2d 1049, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1081, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2296, 1989 WL 43335

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 2, 1989·No. No. 88-732·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted and sentenced for a violation of Section 893.-135(l)(d)(3), Florida Statutes (1983). At the time of sentencing the trial court did not impose the mandatory fine of $250,000.00. The state appeals and contends that it was error. We agree on the authority of Rosa v. State, 508 So.2d 546, 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 515 So.2d 230 (Fla.1987). See also Sastre v. State, 487 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

The matter is returned to the trial court' for the purpose of imposing the mandatory fine as an additional penalty.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted and sentenced for a violation of Section 893.-135(l)(d)(3), Florida Statutes (1983). At the time of sentencing the trial court did not impose the mandatory fine of $250,000.00. The state appeals and contends that it was error. We agree on the authority of Rosa v. State, 508 So.2d 546, 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 515 So.2d 230 (Fla.1987). See also Sastre v. State, 487 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

The matter is returned to the trial court' for the purpose of imposing the mandatory fine as an additional penalty.

State v. Thompson, 542 So. 2d 1049, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1081, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2296, 1989 WL 43335 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

542 So. 2d 1049 (State v. Thompson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related