Muro v. State, 589 So. 2d 1048

PER CURIAM.

We affirm defendant’s conviction for attempted possession of cocaine.

However, we agree with defendant that conditions 11, 12, 13, and 18 of the conditions of probation imposed in his sentence had not been orally pronounced by the trial court and are, therefore, not properly a part of the sentence. See Zachary v. State, 559 So.2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

We do not find merit in defendant’s remaining contention concerning the award of fees and costs which had been agreed to by defendant as a part of his plea bargain.

The conviction is affirmed. The sentence is remanded for correction in accordance with this opinion.

RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Muro v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Dec 18, 1991

Citations: 589 So. 2d 1048; 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13265; 1991 WL 272644; No. 90-02197

Docket Number: No. 90-02197

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.