DAVID HALE AND NELSON RIOS, APPELLANTS,
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 appellate court reviewed the State's appeal of non-final orders dismissing informations, which were signed by assistant state attorneys but not identified as such on the signature line, and affirmed the trial court's dismissal with leave to amend.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the informations, finding them technically defective, but noting the State was afforded leave to amend.
The State of Florida appealed orders dismissing informations that were signed by assistant state attorneys, although the body of the informations stat…
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
RYDER, Judge;
Appellants Hale and Rios, through an Anders v. State of California1 brief, seek review of their judgments and sentences for robbery with a deadly weapon in violation of section 812.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1981). Although informed of their right to file a supplemental brief, neither appellant has chosen to exercise this right. Therefore, after reviewing the Anders brief and examining the record on appeal, we find no merit in the contentions that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions and that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting the statements made by appellant Rios and overheard by Officer Lash.
In the Anders brief, appellants’ counsel also argued the trial court erred in ordering each appellant to pay $10.00 pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1981), (Crimes Compensation Trust Fund) and $2.00 pursuant to section 943.25(4), Florida Statutes (1981), (Law Enforcement Training and Correctional Officer Training Trust Fund).
Upon examination of the record, we strike the portion of each appellant’s judgment and sentence which requires him to pay the above-mentioned costs because we find nothing in the record to indicate that either appellant was given notice that these costs would be imposed and was also given an opportunity to object to the assessments. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984); Kerney v. State, 445 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Our decision to strike the court costs is without prejudice to the state to tax these costs in accordance with the procedure outlined in Jenkins. Therefore, we AFFIRM the convictions and sentences as modified herein.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur. . 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 493 (1967).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- 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)