Stites v. State

PETERSON, Judge.

Samuel Stites raises only one issue on appeal: the imposition in the probation order of an obligation to pay fifty dollars to the “drug abuse fund.” Imposition of this obligation was error since notice that this cost would be imposed was not provided to him prior to or during the hearing. See Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984); Burgess v. State, 569 So.2d 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). We vacate the probation order for that reason and also because it orders Stites to serve a three-year period of incarceration in the Department of Corrections as a condition of his probation.…