AARON W. TREADWAY, 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 costs imposed without proper notice and opportunity to be heard were erroneous and that an ex post facto challenge to a statute not raised at trial could not be considered on appeal.
Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to first-degree murder, conspiracy, and robbery charges. Following his plea, costs were imposed pursuant to certain …
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 Imposition Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant appeals from the imposition of costs following his entry of a plea of nolo contendere and adjudication of guilt for murder in the first degree, conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree, robbery with a deadly weapon and conspiracy to commit robbery with a deadly weapon.
Appellant first contends, and the state concedes, that the imposition of costs pursuant to sections 943.25(4), 943.25(8) and 960.20, Florida Statutes (1985), was erroneous because the requisite notice and opportunity to be heard had not been complied with. We agree and strike the imposition of costs without prejudice to the state filing a new motion. See Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984); Adams v. State, 497 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Appellant next raises the issue that section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985) violates ex post facto restrictions of the United States and Florida Constitutions as applied to him. The crime to which he pled nolo contendere occurred prior to the effective date of the statute. Ch. 85-213, §§ 2, 3, Laws of Fla. Ex post facto issues are generally not fundamental error and, therefore, must be raised at trial to be properly preserved for direct appeal. Johnson v. State, 495 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Springfield v. State, 443 So. 2d 484, 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
A review of the record indicates that appellant did not raise this contention at trial. Accordingly, we refuse to rule on this issue at this time. Our holding is without prejudice to appellant to seek relief in the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Johnson; Springfield at 485.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amison v. State, 504 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…l court, we decline to rule on this issue now. However, our holding is without prejudice to appellant raising this challenge pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Parker v. State, 500 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Treadway v. State, 500 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Next, appellant correctly alleges error in imposition of costs pursuant to section 27.3455(1) without prior determination of ability to pay. Skinner v. State, 498 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accordingly, we strike the $200 c…
-
Bostic v. State, 504 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…al court, we decline to rule on this issue now. However, our holding does not preclude appellant from raising this challenge pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Parker v. State, 500 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Treadway v. State, 500 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); contra Webber v. State, 497 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Secondly, appellant alleges error in the court’s assessing $200 costs against him pursuant to section 27.3455, without prior notice and without first determining appell…
-
Arnold v. State, 505 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…of the United States and Florida Constitutions. However, it appears that defendant did not raise this point in the trial court and therefore failed to preserve it for appeal. See Parker v. State, 500 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Treadway v. State, 500 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Maldonado v. State, 498 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Johnson v. State, 495 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); contra Webber v. State, 497 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Defendant additionally contends that there was error becaus…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Johnson v. State, 495 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Buford Springfield v. State, 443 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Adams v. State, 497 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)