LARRY GRIGGS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellant convicted and adjudged insolvent must pay $10.00 in costs under section 960.20 but not $4.00 under section 939.01, as the latter applies only when the county bears responsibility for indigent defendants' court costs.
An indigent defendant convicted after a guilty plea may be required to pay costs under section 960.20, Florida Statutes, but not under section 939.01 when adjudged insolvent, because section 939.15 requires the county to pay court costs for insolvent defendants while section 960.20 expressly prohibits political subdivisions from bearing such costs.
[1] An indigent defendant adjudged insolvent may be required to pay costs under section 960.20, Florida Statutes, because that statute expressly prohibits political subdivisi…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with a crime, adjudged insolvent, appointed a public defender, and convicted on a guilty plea. A cost order required him to pay …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Public Defender Appointment cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
Charged with a crime, appellant was adjudged insolvent and the public defender was appointed. He was convicted on a guilty plea and appeals an order that he pay costs of $4.00 under section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1981), and $10.00 under section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1981). The cost order is hereby modified to delete the requirement of payment of the $4.00 of court costs. Cox v. State, 334 So. 2d 568 (Fla.1976); Williams v. State, 375 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979); Kimble v. State, 396 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Mack v. State, 305 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
The Cox decision was based on section 939.15, Florida Statutes, which requires the county to pay court costs of insolvent defendants. That section is not applicable to costs taxed under section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1981), which expressly prohibits a political subdivision from being liable for such costs. Therefore, the Cox holding is inapplicable to the $10.00 cost taxed against appellant under section 960.20, Florida Statutes. There is no constitutional impediment against merely taxing costs against an indigent defendant upon conviction. Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40, 94 S.Ct. 2116, 40 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974). Therefore, the cost order is AFFIRMED as modified.
ORFINGER, C. J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)…e asserted as protecting Jenkins from the costs assessment. These are the statutes applied in Arnold and Byrd, supra. Neither are applicable to the special costs imposed by Sections 960.20 and 943.25(4), Florida Statutes (1981). See Griggs v. State, 416 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). We recede from our decision in Mobley v. State. A defendant who objects to the imposition of costs under Sections 960.20 and 943.25(4) shall be required to timely object on the ground of insolvency and shall offer due proof of…
-
Brown v. State, 427 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…tional costs.3 See Brown v. State, 400 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Engle v. State, 407 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Johnson v. State, 419 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Ivory v. State, 419 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). But see Griggs v. State, 416 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Therefore, we strike the $67 court costs and the costs of $10, $2, and $1 assessed under section 960.20 and sections 943.25(4) and (8). The First District recently held that a finding of indigency under section 27.52 is not app…
-
Jenkins v. State, 422 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…e asserted as protecting Jenkins from the costs assessment. These are the statutes applied in Arnold and Byrd, supra. Neither are applicable to the special costs imposed by Sections 960.20 and 943.25(4), Florida Statutes (1981). See Griggs v. State, 416 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). We recede from our decision in Mob-ley v. State. A defendant who objects to the imposition of costs under Sections 960.-20 and 943.25(4) shall be required to timely object on the ground of insolvency and shall offer due proof o…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1974)
- COX v. State, 334 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1976)
- Kimble v. State, 396 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Jonah Mack v. State, 305 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Williams v. State, 375 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)
- Drew Deiches v. The Honorable Frank N. Kaney, 375 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)