Douglas v. State
Douglas v. State
627 So. 2d 30; 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11439; 1993 WL 461957
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Douglas v. State
Opinion of the Court
We affirm appellant’s convictions and the order placing him on probation following his plea of nolo contendere. We strike that portion of the judgment which requires payments to the “Court Improvement Fund” and “Hillsborough County Drug Fund,” without prejudice to the state to seek reimposition of these non-statutory costs after proper notice to appellant. See, e.g., Alfonso v. State, 595 So.2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.