JOYCE ATYEO, 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 trial court erred in assessing certain court costs against an insolvent appellant without adequate notice and opportunity to object, and in applying a statute retroactively that violated ex post facto restrictions.
[1] A trial court errs in assessing court costs against an insolvent defendant without providing adequate notice or an opportunity to object.
[2] Imposing court costs pursuant to a statute that became effective after the commission of the crime violates ex post facto provisions.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was adjudged insolvent and assessed court costs. The trial court also imposed costs under a statute that became effective after the crim…
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 Ex Post Facto Restrictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Joyce Atyeo, appeals that portion of the final judgment and sentence entered against her which imposes certain court costs. After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we agree that the trial court erred in assessing these costs.
After adjudging appellant insolvent, the trial court assessed costs against her in the amount of $20 pursuant to section 960.-20, Florida Statutes (1983), $2.50 pursuant to section 943.25(4), Florida Statutes (1983), and $2 pursuant to section 943.25(8), Florida Statutes (1983). Since appellant was adjudged insolvent and was not given either adequate notice of the assessment of these costs or an opportunity to object to the assessment, we hereby strike the costs. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). This decision is without prejudice to the trial court assessing costs against appellant in accordance with the requirements of Jenkins.
The court also erred in imposing, over appellant’s objection, $200 court costs pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). Appellant’s crime of burglary of a dwelling was committed during the month of May 1985. Section 27.3455 became effective on July 1, 1985. The trial court’s imposition of these costs, therefore, violated constitutional ex post facto restrictions. See U.S.Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3 and § 10, cl. 1; Fla. Const. art. I, § 10; Bowman v. State, 495 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) [11 FLW 2173]; see also, Yost v. State, 489 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
We, accordingly, strike that portion of the judgment imposing $200 court costs against the appellant pursuant to section 27.3455 and certify the following question to the supreme court as a question of great public importance:
DOES THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 27.3455, FLORIDA STATUTES (1985) TO CRIMES COMMITTED PRI OR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE STATUTE VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, OR DOES THE STATUTE MERELY EFFECT A PROCEDURAL CHANGE AS IS PERMITTED UNDER STATE V JACKSON, 478 S0.2D 1054 (FLA.1985)?
GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Bowman, 509 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1987)…2d 1099 (Fla.1987). It is so ordered. MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur. * Yablonski v. State, 502 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Monroe v. State, 502 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Atyeo v. State, 500 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Fitte v. State, 499 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Baker v. State, 499 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Maldonado v. State, 498 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Bowman v. State, 495 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).…
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Yost v. State, 489 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Bowman v. State, 495 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)