Williams v. State, 88-01771

Decision Date02 February 1990
Docket NumberNo. 88-01771,88-01771
Citation556 So.2d 480
Parties15 Fla. L. Weekly D317 Andre L. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pleaded guilty to purchasing and possession of cocaine, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his oral motion to dismiss the possession of cocaine charge on the basis of Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla.1987), and Gordon v. State, 528 So.2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), decision approved sub nom., State v. Smith, 547 So.2d 613 (Fla.1989). See also Lewis v. State, 545 So.2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The trial court withheld adjudication on the charges, placed appellant on two concurrent one-year terms of probation, and imposed court costs and attorney's fees. After the sentencing hearing and without giving appellant an opportunity to object, the trial court imposed written special conditions of probation, which include the following:

(13) Must not live with member of opposite sex that is not a relative.

....

(16) Will not ... visit places where intoxicants and drugs are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used.

We agree with appellant that the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss the charge of possession of cocaine. Accordingly, this conviction should be vacated. See Wagner v. State, 553 So.2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Gordon.

We strike the imposition of court costs and attorney's fees because they were imposed without notice and a hearing. Wood v. State, 544 So.2d 1004, 1006 (Fla.1989); Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984) We reject the state's argument that appellant waived such notice and hearing. The boiler plate "waiver" in an affidavit of insolvency has recently been held invalid. Bull v. State, 548 So.2d 1103 (Fla.1989). The state may seek reimposition of costs after proper notice and hearing.

We further strike special condition (13) of appellant's probation, Brodus v. State, 449 So.2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); but affirm special condition (16). The fourth district, in 1977, held the same condition of probation as in special condition (16) in this case not to be unreasonable or unlawful, where the defendant pleaded guilty to charges of obtaining property by worthless checks. Heatherly v. State, 343 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). We recognize that circumstances have changed from 1977 to the present and that many drug offenders live in so-called...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Johnson v. State, 96-02641
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 24, 1997
    ...at sentencing will affect the state's ability at a later date to establish a willful violation of that condition. See Williams v. State, 556 So.2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). This statutory condition clearly provides adequate warning to probationers to avoid illegal drugs. 5 It warns them not t......
  • Gregory v. State, 92-01319
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 31, 1993
    ...may be highly relevant in a case where the crime itself involves the use or distribution of unlawful drugs. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 556 So.2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Alvarez, therefore, is of no avail to In Huff the probationer was directed not to reside in close proximity to "a known......
  • Brown v. State, 92-00994
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 3, 1993
    ...six prohibiting a defendant from visiting places where intoxicants and drugs are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used. Williams v. State, 556 So.2d 480, 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Additionally, we believe that the court's oral pronouncement regarding condition six satisfied the requirements of O......
  • Daniels v. State, 90-02534
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 2, 1991
    ...and drugs are not reasonably related to the offense. Rodriguez v. State, 378 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Cf. Williams v. State, 556 So.2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (conditions relating to this type of conduct are proper in a drug-related case). The record does not indicate that Mr. Daniels had......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT