ALPHONSO WILLIAMS, 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 assessment of costs against an indigent defendant is improper without prior notice and an opportunity to object.
The appellant, an indigent defendant, was assessed costs under two Florida Statutes without prior notice or opportunity to object. He appealed the jud…
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 Notice And Opportunity To Object cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Alphonso Williams appeals from his judgment and sentence for possession of a controlled substance.
In the judgment, appellant was ordered to pay twenty dollars pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1981) (Crimes Compensation Trust Fund), and two dollars 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 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 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.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vito Cito, Jr. v. State, 721 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…n was hearsay testimony from his probation officer that his mother stated that she did not know where he was. See Rowan v. State, 696 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Accordingly, we strike that portion of the trial court’s order. See Raines v. State, 445 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Affirmed. PARKER, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W. Senior Judge, Concur.…
-
Robinson v. State, 468 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…ich to review the financial resources of appellant and the nature of the burden that payment of the fee would impose upon appellant. Thus there was no proof before the court that appellant had the ability to pay his supervisory fee. Raines v. State, 445 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Brown v. State, 429 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Hines v. State, 420 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Sillett v. State, 393 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Coxon v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Another finding in the…
-
Berry v. State, 484 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…Since no evidence was introduced showing defendant had the ability to pay supervision and court costs, that allegation must be stricken from the revocation order. See Griffin v. State, 481 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Underwood; Raines v. State, 445 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Robinson. Finally, since the trial judge did not indicate which technical violations defendant had committed, we must remand for entry of an amended order where the judge may specify those technical violations. The judge must lim…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Kerney v. State, 445 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- City OF Vero Beach v. Larry Catron Invs., Inc., 445 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)