SAMUEL BROWN, 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 assessed under a statute not in effect at the time of the offense violate the ex post facto clause, and costs requiring notice must be afforded that procedural due process.
Appellant was assessed various costs after conviction for robbery. Some costs were assessed under a statute not yet effective, and others were assesse…
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 Notice And Opportunity To Object cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
In this consolidated appeal from his final judgment and sentence for robbery, the appellant raises five points. We find merit only in his challenge of the assessment of certain costs against him.
The trial court ordered the appellant to pay $20 to the Crime Compensation Trust Fund pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1985), $2.50 pursuant to section 943.25(4), and $2 pursuant to section 943.25(8), but did not afford the appellant the procedural requirements of notice and an opportunity to object to the imposition of these costs. See Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984).
The appellant was also assessed $200 in court costs under section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). Since the appellant’s offenses were committed in April 1985 and the statute did not become effective until July 1, 1985, the imposition of these costs violated the ex post facto provisions of the United States and Florida Constitutions. See U.S. Const., art. I, § 9, cl. 3 and § 10, cl. 1; Fla.Const., art. I, § 10; State v. Yost, 507 So. 2d 1099 (Fla.1987).
Accordingly, we strike the imposition of costs imposed pursuant to section 27.3455, and remand for a hearing on the other costs in accord with the requirements of Jenkins. The judgment and sentences in all other respects are affirmed.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and PRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Furlow v. State, 510 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…ommitted before that date would violate the ex post facto clause of the United States and Florida Constitutions. See U.S. Const, art. I, § 9, cl. 3 and § 10, cl. 1; Fla. Const, art. I, § 10; State v. Yost, 507 So. 2d 1099 (Fla.1987); Brown v. State, 510 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). CAMPBELL and HALL, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Yost, 507 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 1987)