Treesh v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Treesh v. State

686 So. 2d 9, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3524, 1996 WL 165389

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 10, 1996

DocketNo. 94-03576

StatusPublished

This text of 686 So. 2d 9 (Treesh 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

Treesh v. State, 686 So. 2d 9, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3524, 1996 WL 165389 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Treesh appeals his judgment arid sentence for simple battery. His attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), suggesting three issues for review. Our independent review of the record reveals error [10]*10only m the imposition of court costs. We affirm in all other respects.

We strike the $2.00 cost imposed pursuant to section 943.25(18), Florida Statutes (1993), because it was not individually announced at sentencing, and the $35.00 cost for the court improvement fund. Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA1995).

Mr. Treesh’s attorney also challenged probation conditions four, relating to the possession of weapons, and seven, relating to the excessive use of intoxicants, because they were not orally pronounced. In light of the recent ruling in State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589 (Fla.1996), however, Mr. Treesh had constructive notice of those conditions and oral pronouncement was not necessary.

Affirmed; costs stricken in part.

THREADGILL, C.J„ and RYDER and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

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