Vonador v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vonador v. State

680 So. 2d 456, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 922, 1996 WL 53672

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 9, 1996

DocketNo. 95-00363

StatusPublished

This text of 680 So. 2d 456 (Vonador 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

Vonador v. State, 680 So. 2d 456, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 922, 1996 WL 53672 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Counsel for Mark A. Vonador has filed an appellate brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), suggesting no meritorious issues for review but directing this court’s attention to two issues: (1) whether the written findings in the trial court’s order support adult sanctions in compliance with Troutman v. State, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993); and (2) whether $2 in costs were improperly assessed. Vonador also filed a pro se brief in this appeal. We affirm the judgment and sentence but strike the $2 cost assessment pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1991), because it is discretionary and was not orally pronounced. See Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc).

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Counsel for Mark A. Vonador has filed an appellate brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), suggesting no meritorious issues for review but directing this court’s attention to two issues: (1) whether the written findings in the trial court’s order support adult sanctions in compliance with Troutman v. State, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993); and (2) whether $2 in costs were improperly assessed. Vonador also filed a pro se brief in this appeal. We affirm the judgment and sentence but strike the $2 cost assessment pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1991), because it is discretionary and was not orally pronounced. See Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc).

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

680 So. 2d 456, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 922, 1996 WL 53672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vonador-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack