Jami v. State
Jami v. State
677 So. 2d 972; 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8333; 1996 WL 441585
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Jami v. State
Opinion of the Court
We reject the appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and, therefore, affirm his judgment and sentences. We strike, however, the words “and pay for” from condition 8 of appellant’s orders of probation. Luby v. State, 648 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We also strike the $33 cosVfine, which was imposed without the citation of statutory authority, without prejudice to the state seeking re-imposition on remand. Coby v. State, 666 So.2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.