Alexander v. State, 81-2271
| Decision Date | 28 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-2271,81-2271 |
| Citation | 425 So.2d 1197 |
| Parties | Samuel S.J. ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jerry Hill, Public Defender, and William H. Pasch, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Theda James Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Samuel Alexander appeals an order of the trial court assessing him with court costs and retaining jurisdiction over the first third of his sentence. We strike the portion requiring that he pay costs and also strike other portions requiring that he pay a fine, restitution and medical bills as conditions of any future parole. In all other respects we affirm.
At the sentencing hearing the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of attempted second degree murder with a deadly weapon and sentenced him to 15 years imprisonment. It retained jurisdiction over the first third of the sentence without stating any reasons for doing so. It then pronounced:
I am also imposing a $1000 fine plus $80 in Court costs to be paid within the first five years of your incarceration or as a condition of any parole that you might receive .... I am also going to order that you make restitution to the doctors and the hospital ... and I am going to order that that be paid within 15 years or as a condition of any parole that you might receive.
The court's final written order totally conformed to its pronouncements at the hearing.
Appellant argues first that we should strike the court costs. Prior to trial, the court adjudged him "partially insolvent," not "insolvent," and appointed the public defender to represent him. Section 939.15, Florida Statutes (1981), provides that the county in which the crime was committed shall pay the defendant's costs if he has been adjudged "insolvent." 1 We deem it proper in this particular case to strike the costs pursuant to section 939.15.
Appellant contends next that we should vacate the retention of jurisdiction and remand with directions that the court satisfy the individual particularity requirement of section 947.16(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981). A court's failure to satisfy this individual particularity requirement is a procedural error. Canty v. State, 402 So.2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Sawyer v. State, 401 So.2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Appellant did not object when this error occurred. Hence, he cannot raise this issue on appeal. Canty; cf. Williams v. State, 414 So.2d 509 (Fla.1982).
In reviewing the sentencing order we could not help but observe that portions of the order required that appellant pay the fine, costs, restitution and medical bills either during incarceration or as conditions of parole. While a court is not precluded from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State, 82-1067
...Brown since he had been adjudged insolvent. 2 § 939.15, Fla.Stat. (1981); Cox v. State, 334 So.2d 568 (Fla.1976); Alexander v. State, 425 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). In Cox the supreme court spoke to costs generally and referred to section 939.15, which requires the county in which the c......
-
Walker v. State, AQ-424
...shows clearly their existence. The error here is procedural. Sawyer v. State, 401 So.2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Alexander v. State, 425 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Canty v. State, 402 So.2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Walker contends merely that the underlying facts and circumstances just......
-
Monk v. State, 82-857
...Parole and Probation Commission is solely vested with the power to establish conditions of parole. § 947.13(1)(b); Alexander v. State, 425 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); see also McRae v. State, 383 So.2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Since the trial court acted without authority to impose a cond......
-
Styles v. State, 84-1639
...v. State, 462 So.2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We also note that Snow would apparently alter this court's decision in Alexander v. State, 425 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), as to addressing on appeal the procedural problem of the failure to state reasons for retention where there was no object......