WILLIE JAMES FOUST, 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 attorney's fees and costs against an indigent defendant is improper without adequate notice and an opportunity to object.
Appellant was convicted of sexual battery and ordered to pay attorney's fees and costs. Appellant argued this assessment was improper due to his indig…
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
[*112] CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant, Willie James Foust, appeals his judgment and sentence for sexual battery with slight force. Upon review of the record on appeal, we find that the evidence was sufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction.
Appellant was ordered to pay $825.00 in attorney’s fees during any period of work release, $10.00 to the Crimes Compensation Fund, and $2.00 in court costs. Appellant argues that the portion of the trial court’s order assessing these costs is improper since he is indigent.
Assessment of attorney’s fees and costs is permissible against an indigent defendant only after the defendant has been given adequate notice and an opportunity to object to the assessment. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984); Harris v. State, 452 So. 2d 1041 (Fla.2d DCA 1984); Murph v. State, 445 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.2d DCA 1984).
There is nothing in the record which indicates that appellant was given notice and an opportunity to object to the assessment of costs and attorney’s fees under sections 27.56(7) and 960.20, Florida Statutes (1981).
Accordingly, the assessment should be stricken without prejudice to the state to tax these costs against appellant after proper notice and hearing.
RYDER, C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. State, 491 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…ect to the assessment of costs ordered by the judgment. Accordingly, the assessment of $17.00 in costs must be stricken without prejudice to the state to seek taxation of these costs against appellant after proper notice and hearing. Foust v. State, 478 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur. . In Parker v. State, 476 So. 2d 134, 138 (Fla.1985), the Supreme Court applied the Neil test: In State v. Neil we established the following test: The…
-
Rago v. State, 498 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…tatutes (1985), and $2.00 pursuant to section 943.25(8), Florida Statutes (1985), must be stricken since defendant was not given notice of the assessment or an opportunity to object to it. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984); Foust v. State, 478 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Murph v. State, 445 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We also find error in the court’s imposition of $200 additional court costs pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Stat [*586] utes (1985) which became effective July 1, 1985. Si…
-
Canale v. State, 509 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…...” The record shows that the valuation of the lien and the imposition of the costs and the lien were accomplished subsequent to the final disposition and shows no such opportunity having been afforded defendant. This was error. See Foust v. State, 478 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The assessment of costs against defendant under sections 27.3455, 960.20 and 943.-25(4), Florida Statutes (1985), was also accomplished without the required notice to the defendant. See Lawton v. State, 492 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Harris v. State, 452 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Wiggins v. State, 445 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)