Toney v. State
This text of 686 So. 2d 3 (Toney 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.
Opinion
We affirm the appellant’s judgment and sentence for armed robbery with a deadly weapon. However, we strike certain special probation conditions and costs. The portion of condition five that prohibits the use of intoxicants to excess is stricken. See Stark v. State, 650 So.2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The portion of condition eight that requires the appellant to pay for random drug testing is stricken. See Luby v. State, 648 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We also strike the $2 court cost imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993). See [4]*4Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
686 So. 2d 3, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13514, 1995 WL 765276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toney-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.