Case Name: Mark A. VONADOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-02-09
Citations: 680 So. 2d 456
Docket Number: No. 95-00363
Parties: Mark A. VONADOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 680
Pages: 456–456

Head Matter:
Mark A. VONADOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 95-00363.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Feb. 9, 1996.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Wayne S. Melnick, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Dale E. Tarpley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Counsel for Mark A. Vonador has filed an appellate brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), suggesting no meritorious issues for review but directing this court's attention to two issues: (1) whether the written findings in the trial court's order support adult sanctions in compliance with Troutman v. State, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993); and (2) whether $2 in costs were improperly assessed. Vonador also filed a pro se brief in this appeal. We affirm the judgment and sentence but strike the $2 cost assessment pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1991), because it is discretionary and was not orally pronounced. See Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc).
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.