Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1994

Tibero v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided December 16, 1994 · Per Curiam

646 So. 2d 213; 1994 WL 406151 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

53 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Gordon v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Department of Children & Families v. D.T. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
Bruce v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
Duncan v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
Allen v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Dobson v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
McClough v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Braggs v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Wilkes v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Robinson v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Cox v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Brown v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Brown v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Young v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Brooks v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Green v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Mosely v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Norris v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Thompson v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Petry v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Rose v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Williams v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Gardiner v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Lowell v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
King v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

646 So.2d 213 (1994)

Ronald TIBERO, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 94-392.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

December 16, 1994.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and James T. Cook, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Belle B. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

OPINION ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We granted the State's motion for rehearing in this cause and, because there is a recurring problem in the trial court's grant of costs in criminal cases, we elect to consider this case en banc. After considering the supplemental briefing and en banc oral argument, we conclude, as did the original panel, that the assessment by the trial court of a $48.00 deposit to First Step of Volusia County, Inc. is beyond the authority of the court.

We are unable to agree with the State that the court's inherent authority justifies this award. While we agree that the court has inherent authority to order those things "that are reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction,"^[1] the deposit to First Step simply does not meet this condition. The State presented no other authority for the assessment. The requirement for such deposit, therefore, is stricken from the conditions of probation.

In all other respects, the judgment and order of probation are affirmed.

AFFIRMED as modified.

HARRIS, C.J., and DAUKSCH, COBB, W. SHARP, GOSHORN, PETERSON, GRIFFIN, DIAMANTIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] Rose v. Palm Beach County, 361 So.2d 135 (Fla. 1978).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.