Ringling v. State, 95-00688
| Citation | 678 So.2d 1339 |
| Decision Date | 26 July 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-00688,95-00688 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1694 Jeffrey RINGLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Michael J.P. Baker, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Appellant pled nolo contendere to manufacture of cannabis and possession of paraphernalia. On appeal, he specifically reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. He has also challenged certain aspects of his sentencing. Although we have found no error in the court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress, we have found various errors in the conditions of probation and costs imposed.
Officer Catanzarita testified at the suppression hearing that appellant lives in a rented mobile home in a mobile home park. After receiving numerous complaints from other residents concerning heavy foot traffic coming from and going to appellant's trailer, the manager of the trailer park asked Officer Catanzarita to investigate. There had also been rumors that appellant had marijuana plants growing inside the trailer. Pursuant to his investigation, Officer Catanzarita obtained the manager's permission to walk around the park and, specifically, to observe appellant's trailer.
After observing appellant's trailer, Officer Catanzarita requested the aid of a drug sniffing dog. When the dog was brought to the rear side of appellant's trailer, the dog alerted and scratched on the side of the trailer. At this point, Officer Catanzarita and Officer New, the canine officer, went to the trailer's front door and, according to the officers, obtained appellant's consent to search the trailer. The officers also said that when they advised appellant that they were looking for drugs and that the dog had alerted, appellant told them that he had marijuana plants in the back of the trailer.
Appellant testified, however, that he did not give consent until after the officers had obtained their evidence. He also testified that he signed the consent to search form under duress because he was afraid the officers would shoot his dog.
The court denied appellant's motion to suppress, put him on drug offender probation and imposed numerous conditions of probation and costs.
We first address appellant's challenge to the court's denial of his motion to suppress. Without reaching the question of whether the area surrounding the trailer was a constitutionally-protected area as to which appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, we conclude that the court was correct in denying appellant's motion to suppress solely on the basis of the officer's testimony that appellant consented to the search. Although appellant testified that he did not consent, the trial court, as finder of fact, was entitled to weigh conflicting testimony. We cannot find that the court erred in believing the officer. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the motion to suppress.
Next, appellant contends that the court erred in placing him on drug offender probation. Under section 948.01(13), Florida Statutes (1993), a defendant who is a chronic substance abuser and whose criminal conduct is a violation of chapter 893 may be placed on drug offender probation. Appellant's prior criminal offenses, cultivation and possession of marijuana, are violations of chapter 893. Appellant's current offenses, manufacture of cannabis and possession of paraphernalia, are also drug offenses. These offenses clearly establish appellant as a chronic substance abuser. The court did not err in placing appellant on drug offender probation.
Finally, appellant challenges numerous conditions of probation and the imposition of certain costs. We will address each in turn:
1. Intoxicants )
Under State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589 (Fla.1996), this condition need not be orally pronounced because it is contained in the list of conditions in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986. We find no error here.
2. Carrying Weapons )
This condition is valid under Hart.
3....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunt v. Sec'y, Florida Dep't of Corr., Case No. 2:09-cv-361-FtM-29SPC
...not unconstitutional, as alleged by the Defendant. See §948.03(l)(m), Fla. Stat. (2000); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.986(e); Ringling v. State, 678 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Therefore, the Court will not strike condition 7.. . .Condition 13 states as follows:You will submit to urinalysis, brea......
-
Johnson v. State, 96-02641
...It is now clear that condition seven, like condition four, does not need to be orally announced at sentencing. See Ringling v. State, 678 So.2d 1339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The question remains whether it is "impermissibly vague." Garrison v. State, 685 So.2d 53, 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). 3 This c......
-
Houston v. State, 96-02527
...to Hart. See Daughtry v. State, 681 So.2d 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Powell v. State, 681 So.2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Ringling v. State, 678 So.2d 1339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In the same period, the Fourth District has stricken a portion of this condition on one occasion and refused to strike i......
-
Joly v. State, 96-00177
...Shacraha v. State, 635 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); (6) probation condition 16 mandating a 9:00 p.m. curfew, see Ringling v. State, 678 So.2d 1339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); and, (7) probation condition H and community control condition M that require payment of $100 to the HCDF, see Reyes, 655......