Martin v. State, 92-747
| Decision Date | 12 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-747,92-747 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D985 Bobby Clay MARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appellant seeks rehearing of that portion of the decision issued January 11, 1993, in which we affirmed the two-year suspension of appellant's driver's license as a condition of probation. As grounds for rehearing, appellant notes that the opinion issued in this cause did not cite a specific authority for affirmance of the driver's license suspension. Assuming the affirmance was based on the state's argument that section 948.01(3)(a), Florida Statutes, authorized suspension of a driver's license, appellant urges this provision applies only if community control is the imposed sanction. The state objects to any grant of rehearing, observing correctly that appellant's initial brief contained no reference to the statute he now asserts as the basis for rehearing, and appellant did not file a reply brief addressing the state's argument in support of the suspension of appellant's driver's license.
We are in sympathy with the state's position. Nevertheless, we grant rehearing in part, in order to explain our affirmance of the suspension of a driver's license as a condition of probation, and to articulate the reasons for our reversal of the assessment of additional costs. Therefore, the opinion issued in this cause on January 11, 1993, is withdrawn and the following is substituted therefor.
Appellant, Bobby Clay Martin, appealed two conditions of his probation, which were imposed in connection with his conviction of possession of cocaine and sale of cocaine. Specifically, appellant contended the imposition of $500.00 as costs for participation in the Bay County Work Program is not authorized by statute, and (2) the trial court's suspension of his driver's license was improper, because it was not done in accordance with section 322.055, Florida Statutes. We reverse the assessment of $500.00 as additional costs associated with appellant's participation in the Bay County Work Program, for the reasons set forth below. We affirm the suspension of appellant's driver's license as a condition of probation, but remand for correction of the probation order to reflect the manner in which such suspension is to be effected.
Under the provisions of section 948.09(1), Florida Statutes (1991), the trial court is authorized to require a probationer to pay for the cost of supervision. Section 948.09(1) provides in part:
(1) Any person under ... felony probation, ... shall be required to contribute no less than $40 or more than $50 per month as decided by the sentencing court ... to a court-approved public or private entity providing him with supervision and rehabilitation. Funds collected from felony offenders may be used to offset costs of the Department of Corrections associated with community supervision programs, subject to appropriation by the Legislature.
The final sentence of this provision indicates legislative intent to enable the Department of Corrections to recoup some of the costs of supervision of non-incarcerated offenders. Section 948.51, Florida Statutes (1991), captioned "Community corrections assistance to counties," has as its stated purpose the diversion of nonviolent offenders from the state prison system by punishing with community-based sanctions. Sec. 948.51(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1991). Section 948.51 outlines the eligibility requirements for county participation in a community corrections partnership contract, and specifies the manner in which such community-based programs shall be funded, i.e., through the Department of Corrections Community Corrections Trust Fund. Sec. 948.51(4)(a) and (8), Fla.Stat. (1991).
An examination of section 948.51 reveals an absence of any provision which could be construed as authorizing the $500.00 assessed against appellant as additional costs for his participation in the Bay County Work Program. Rather, a reading of the statutory provision in its entirety evinces legislative intent that such community-based corrections programs shall be funded by the state, to be effected in part by the assessments authorized pursuant to section 948.09(1). This intent is evident when section 948.51 is read in pari materia with the section 948.09(1) provision that "[f]unds collected from felony offenders may be used to offset costs of the Department of Corrections associated with community supervision programs, subject to appropriation by the Legislature."
In other words, as appellant contends, there appears to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blanchette v. State
...cake and eat it too." The defense responds that the entire matter is controlled by this court's opinion on rehearing in Martin v. State, 618 So.2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (on rehearing), that the fees are illegal, and accordingly, they must be stricken. The state counters, that even if the ......
-
Ayoub v. State
...Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles to revoke Ayoub's driving privilege for two years. See § 322.055, Fla. Stat. (2002); Martin v. State, 618 So.2d 737, 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). For the battery offense, we strike the conditions suspending Ayoub's driver's license based on the State's concession......
-
Edwards v. State, 94-379
...See Wheatley v. State, 629 So.2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Blanchette v. State, 620 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Martin v. State, 618 So.2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). See also Thomas v. State, 633 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 640 So.2d 1109 (Fla.1994). Finally, appellant must be......
-
Wheatley v. State
...associated with his participation in the Bay County Work Program, because this cost is not statutorily authorized. 2 Martin v. State, 618 So.2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We also reverse condition # 18 of the probation order, which directs Wheatley to stay away from five specified areas appar......