MARION HAYNES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Gain Time Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Marion Haynes appeals the denial of his motion to correct sentence. Pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), the trial court assessed costs against Haynes in the amount of $200.00. The statute requires that Haynes pay these costs before he may be considered for gain time. Haynes maintains that he is indigent and, thus, should have been required to perform community service in lieu of payment of these costs. The record before us fails to demonstrate that Haynes is not entitled to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court with directions either to correct the sentence or to attach sufficient portions of the record to demonstrate that Haynes is not indigent and, thus, that the motion was properly denied. If the trial court again denies the motion, Haynes must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain further review by this court.
Reversed and remanded.
SCHOONOVER and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stabinski, Funt & DE Oliveira, P.A. v. LAW Offs. OF Frank H. Alvarez, 490 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…llegedly required by Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla.1985).3 See Boyle v. Boyle, 485 So. 2d 879 (Fla.2d DCA 1986) (fee award under § 61.16 in domestic case remanded for Rowe findings); see also Lyons v. Lyons, 486 So. 2d 77 (Fla.2d DCA 1986) (domestic case indicating that Rowe findings required). We reject this contention upon the holding that Rowe and the federal lodestar method it adopts apply only to fees imposed ancillary to the primary action against a non-client…
-
Good Samaritan Hosp. Ass'n, Inc. v. Auvel Saylor and Margaret Saylor, 495 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…ier of 2.0 = $1.1 million). The order awarding attorney’s fees demonstrates that the trial judge considered the factors required to compute a reasonable fee using the lodestar formula, and shows substantial compliance with Rowe. See Lyons v. Lyons, 486 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment and the order on attorney’s fees in all respects. AFFIRMED. LETTS and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur. . The decedent’s physicians, codefendants at trial, settled with appellees. . Appellant…
-
Winterbotham v. Winterbotham, 500 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…fee” should not “exceed the fee agreement reached by the attorney and his client.” Rowe at 1151. This court has previously held that Rowe is applicable to domestic relations cases. Moore v. Moore, 491 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Lyons v. Lyons, 486 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Boyle v. Boyle, 485 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). [*725] Admittedly, the holding in Rowe, establishing that “in no case should the court-awarded fee exceed the fee agreement reached by the attorney and his client” (Rowe, 472 So.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence