ALFONSO FURLOW, 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.
Alfonso Furlow appealed the costs imposed by the trial court following his guilty plea to four counts of uttering a forged instrument. The court reversed and struck all costs imposed, finding the trial court failed to determine indigency at sentencing and failed to provide proper notice and opportunity to object to certain costs.
The court struck all costs imposed. For costs under section 27.3455, the court found the trial court failed to determine the defendant's solvency at sentencing despite his prior indigent status. For costs under sections 960.20 and 943.25(8), the defendant was not afforded notice and an opportunity to object as procedurally required.
[1] Costs imposed pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), must be stricken when the trial court fails to determine the defendant's indigency at sentencing.
[2] A defendant must be afforded notice and an opportunity to object before costs are imposed pursuant to sections 960.20 and 943.25(8), Florida Statutes.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Section 27.3455, effective July 1, 1985, indicated that indigency was to be determined at the time of the defendant's sentencing and those persons found to be indigent were to be ordered to serve a term of community service in lieu of imposition of the costs.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for indigency determination at sentencing and the alternative to cost imposition
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Furlow pled no contest to four charges of uttering a forged instrument—one offense in June 1985 and three occurring after July 1, 1985. The …
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
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
Defendant, Alfonso Furlow, pled no contest to four charges of uttering a forged instrument. One of the offenses occurred in June 1985; the remaining three occurred subsequent to July 1, 1985. The trial court adjudicated defendant guilty and sentenced him to two and one-half years in prison on each count to run consecutively. The court also ordered the defendant to pay court costs in each of the four cases as follows: $200 pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985) with the stipulation that no gain time would be allowed until such costs were paid; $20 pursuant to section 960.20; and $2 pursuant to section 943.25(8).
On appeal the defendant challenges only the costs imposed against him.
Section 27.3455, effective July 1, 1985, indicated that indigency was to be determined at the time of the defendant’s sentencing and those persons found to be indigent were to be ordered to serve a term of community service in lieu of imposition of the costs. Frazier v. State, 503 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We note the defendant had been found indigent for purposes of trial and appeal, but the court failed to determine the defendant’s solvency at sentencing. Therefore, we strike the costs imposed under section 27.3455.
Moreover, the defendant was not afforded the procedural requirements of notice and an opportunity to object to the imposition of the costs imposed pursuant to section 960.20 and section 943.25(8). Therefore, these costs must also be stricken. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984).
Our opinion is without prejudice to the state seeking to impose costs upon compliance with the relevant statutes. The trial court, however, should be aware that since section 27.3455 did not become effective until July 1, 1985, imposition of costs for an offense committed 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Yost, 507 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 1987)
- Frazier v. State, 503 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Brown v. State, 510 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)