Golden v. State, 93-03626
| Decision Date | 09 February 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-03626,93-03626 |
| Citation | 667 So.2d 933 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D376 Jacques F. GOLDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for DeSoto County; James S. Parker, Judge.
Matthew E. McMillan, Bradenton, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Jacques F. Golden appeals his sentence for two counts of sale of cocaine and two counts of possession of cocaine as well as the imposition of certain conditions of probation and costs. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We find no error as to his claim that it was error to sentence him via a closed-circuit video hookup. The sentencing judge held the hearing while the appellant was accompanied by his counsel at the jail. The sentencing judge and the prosecutor remained at the courthouse and all parties had an ability to speak with and see each other. The appellant had also signed a written waiver consenting to sentencing via video hookup. The precautions outlined in Scott v. State, 618 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), were taken here and we see no reason why such sentencing cannot be done via closed-circuit video hookup as long as the proper waivers were executed as was done here.
The appellant next complains of various costs which were imposed upon him. We find no error in imposing the court costs of $255 or the attorney's fees of $300. However, the costs of investigation ($134) were imposed without proper request and documentation. 1 Although the sentencing judge orally announced at the sentencing hearing that he was imposing these investigatory costs and neither the appellant nor his counsel objected, the sentencing judge had no authority to impose these costs without a request from the state. See § 939.01(1), Fla.Stat. (1991); Oates v. State, 659 So.2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Accordingly we strike that portion of the written orders imposing the $134.
Finally, it was error for the sentencing judge to impose probation condition 16 and community control condition 20 which both require the appellant to pay for random drug testing since the judge did not orally pronounce these conditions at the hearing. Malone v. State, 652 So.2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We strike these conditions also.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
I agree that the investigation costs must be stricken because of our holding in Oates. I suspect that our record is simply...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Jackson
- Taylor v. State
-
Pazo v. State, 96-0717
...a contemporaneous objection was not required because the trial court lacked the authority to impose these costs. See Golden v. State, 667 So.2d 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Gant v. State, 640 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's sentence, vacate the imposition of inves......
-
Gonse v. State, 96-02896
...on remand, the State must request it and document the amount. See Imhoff v. State, 673 So.2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Golden v. State, 667 So.2d 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); § 939.01, Fla. Stat. With respect to the $2 discretionary cost authorized by section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1995), th......