Vonador v. State

680 So. 2d 456, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 922, 1996 WL 53672
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 9, 1996·No. No. 95-00363·Published

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

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

680 So. 2d 456 (Vonador v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Troutman v. State
630 So. 2d 528 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1993)
Reyes v. State
655 So. 2d 111 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)