JOSEPH CURTIS SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice And Opportunity To Object cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
The state moved to stay the mandate in Smith v. State, 10 F.L.W. 59 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 28, 1984), pending the Florida Supreme Court’s consideration of a petition to review L.S. v. State, 446 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Our opinion in Smith hinged on the same question as L.S. v. State. We had thought that the Second District Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d 66 (Fla.1983), parting company with the Third and Fifth Districts, whose interpretations were different.
While we were deliberating on the state’s motion, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in support of the Third District’s holding. L.S. v. State, 464 So. 2d 1195 (Fla.1985). Accordingly, we withdraw our opinion in Smith v. State, 10 F.L.W. 59, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
We reiterate, however, that the trial court must give the indigent defendant notice and opportunity to object before the court may assess costs against him. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). Therefore, we strike the assessment of costs, without prejudice to the state to tax the costs in accordance with the required procedure. Williams v. State, 445 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
ANSTEAD, C.J., and BARKETT, J., concur.
PER CURIAM.
The original basis for this motion arose when this court withdrew its original opinion of reversal and affirmed the trial court. Because we had reversed appellant’s conviction we found it unnecessary to consider his challenge to the court’s sentence. Now the basis of the motion is the trial court’s departure from the guidelines in sentencing appellant. We find the reasons therefor to be insufficient and remand for sentencing within the guidelines.
In all other respects, the motion is denied.
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomson v. Dep't OF Env't Reg., 511 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1987)…District Court of Appeal affirmed an administrative order in which the [*990] Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) denied the petitioners’ (Thomsons’) application for a construction permit. Thomson v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 493 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, we accepted jurisdiction because of apparent conflict with Matthews v. State ex rel. St. Andrews Bay Transportation Co., 111 Fla. 587,149 So. 648 (1933). The Thomson…
-
Smith v. State, 510 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…GLICKSTEIN, Judge. In moving for rehearing of our October 1, 1986, per curiam opinion, 493 So. 2d 1032, the state contends that the trial court stated two clear and convincing reasons that justify departure from the guidelines sentence in this case: the proximity in time of the appellant’s subject misconduct to the time of his release from imprisonme…
-
1800 Atl. Developers v. Dep't OF Env't Reg. & City of Key W., 552 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…vacillation on the changes necessary to allow the permit to issue. To avoid unduly harsh results that could flow from the application of the doctrine of res judicata, citing this court's decision in Thomson v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 493 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the order explicitly provided that it "does not foreclose a further application by 1800 Atlantic to construct a beach at the proposed site”; however, "specific facts determined in this proceeding will be binding, on any subseque…
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1983)
- L.S. v. State, 464 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 1985)
- Alphonso Williams v. State, 445 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- L.S. v. State, 446 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- THE Florida BAR v. Soven, 484 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1986)