MITCHELL MATTHEW ALBRITTON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; STEVEN MICHAEL HALL, 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 imposing court costs under a statute not yet effective at the time of the offense violates ex post facto provisions, and that indigency requires a determination of ability to pay before costs are imposed.
Appellants were convicted of sexual battery for offenses committed on February 5, 1985. The court imposed costs pursuant to a statute effective July 1…
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 Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
Albritton and Hall appeal from their convictions for sexual battery and from the assessment of certain costs against them. We affirm appellants’ convictions but reverse the portions of their final judgments which impose costs.
The crimes for which appellants were convicted occurred on February 5, 1985. Appellants argue that the court violated the ex post facto provisions of the United States and Florida Constitutions when it imposed court costs pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes, since that statute did not become effective until July I, 1985, four months after the date of the offenses. We agree and follow our previous decision in Bowman v. State, 495 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) [11 F.L.W. 2173]. Accordingly, we vacate the portions of the final judgments imposing costs. We also certify the question set out in Bowman to the Florida Supreme Court as a question of great public importance.
Appellants’ second contention that the trial court improperly ordered them to pay court costs after adjudging them insolvent also has merit. Before costs may be imposed upon an indigent defendant, a judicial determination must be made that the defendant has the ability to pay. He must also receive adequate notice and the opportunity to object to the imposition of such costs. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984).
Conviction affirmed; judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SANDERLIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Bowman v. State, 495 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)