LEON D. KERNEY, 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.
The court held that the assessment of certain costs against an indigent defendant is improper without prior notice and an opportunity to object.
Appellant, an indigent defendant convicted of burglary, challenged the trial court's order to pay specific statutory costs. No prior notice was given …
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 Crimes Compensation Trust Fund cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Leon Kerney appeals from a conviction and sentence for burglary.
In the judgment, appellant was ordered to pay $10 pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1981) (Crimes Compensation Trust Fund), and $2 pursuant to section 943.25(4), Florida Statutes (1981) (Law Enforcement Training and Correctional Officer Training Trust Fund). Because he is an indigent, appellant argues that the portion of the trial court’s order assessing such costs is improper. In Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984), the supreme court determined that the assessment of costs under section 960.-20 and section 943.25(4) against an indigent defendant was permissible only after the defendant has been given adequate notice of such assessment and full opportunity to object to the assessment. Further the supreme court stated that any enforcement of the collection of those costs must occur only after a judicial finding that the indigent defendant has the ability to pay in accordance with the principles of Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40, 94 S.Ct. 2116, 40 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974). These costs have no priority over costs owed to the county pursuant to section 939.15, Florida Statutes (1981).
Here, as in Jenkins, no prior notice was given to appellant that costs under section 960.20 and section 943.25(4) would be assessed against him. Accordingly, the assessment was not appropriate and is hereby STRICKEN. Our decision is without prejudice to the state to tax these costs in accordance with the procedure outlined in Jenkins.
In all other respects, the judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED.
OTT, C.J., and BOARDMAN and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alphonso Williams v. State, 445 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…is permissible only after the defendant has been given adequate notice of such assessment and full opportunity to object to the assessment. Where no prior notice has been given, this court has stricken the assessment of such costs. Kerney v. State, 445 So. 2d 381 (Fla.2d DCA 1984). Here, nothing in the record indicates that the appellant was given notice and an opportunity to object to the assessment of costs under sections 960.20 and 943.25(4). Accordingly, the assessment was not appropriate and is hereby…
-
Miller v. State, 449 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…insolvent, was not given adequate notice of the assessment of these costs nor the full opportunity to object to the assessment. The assessment was not appropriate and is hereby stricken. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984); Kerney v. State, 445 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Our decision is without prejudice to the state to tax these costs in accordance with the procedure outlined in Jenkins. In all other respects, the judgment and sentences are affirmed. GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN,…
-
Shaffer v. State, 446 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…nd section 943.25(4) and (8), Florida Statutes (1981). Because appellants did not receive prior notice that these costs would be assessed against them, these assessments must be stricken. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984); Kerney v. State, 445 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Our decision is without prejudice to the state to tax these costs in [*1157] accordance with the procedure outlined in Jenkins. In sentencing appellants, the trial court also orally imposed additional court costs of $55 and $250…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1974)