HELEN MARIE REESE, 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.
Helen Marie Reese appeals her conviction and sentence for attempted second-degree murder. The court affirms the conviction and sentence but reverses the trial court's cost imposition order because the defendant was not afforded notice and an opportunity to object before costs were imposed.
Although costs may be imposed on an indigent defendant under sections 960.20, 943.25(4), and amended section 27.3455, due process requires that the trial court first afford the defendant notice and an opportunity to object. The trial court's cost imposition order is reversed and remanded for rehearing with proper procedures and application of amended section 27.3455.
[1] A trial court must provide a defendant with notice and an opportunity to object before imposing costs pursuant to sections 960.20, 943.25(4), and 27.3455, Florida Statute…
[2] Failure to afford a defendant notice and an opportunity to object before imposing costs violates due process requirements.
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 intelligence“Although costs may be imposed on an indigent defendant under sections 960.-20 and 943.25(4), Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984), as well as under the amended section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1987), the trial court must first afford the defendant notice and an opportunity to object.”
Establishes the core holding that while cost imposition is permissible, procedural due process requirements must be satisfied.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReese was convicted by jury of attempted second-degree murder and sentenced accordingly. The trial court imposed costs on the defendant, including dir…
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 Anders Brief Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Appellant Reese appeals a judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found her guilty of attempted second-degree murder. We affirm both the judgment and sentence, pursuant to an Anders1 brief submitted by appellant’s counsel. On review of supplemental briefs filed by both appellant and appellee2, however, we reverse the trial court’s order imposing costs pursuant to section 960.20 and section 943.25(4), and directing appellant to “either pay $200 to the Criminal Justice Fund or complete sixty (60) hours of community service work,” pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes. Although costs may be imposed on an indigent defendant under sections 960.-20 and 943.25(4), Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984), as well as under the amended section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1987), the trial court must first afford the defendant notice and an opportunity to object. Jenkins v. State, supra; Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1988). Since due process requirements were not observed in this case, the portion of the trial court’s order imposing costs is reversed and remanded for rehearing. On remand, the trial court is to use the amended section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1987). Riddell v. State, 509 So. 2d 956, 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Brown v. State, 508 So. 2d 776, 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Jones v. State, 507 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
. This court requested supplemental briefs on the issue of costs, pursuant to State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla.1987), after an examination of the record revealed an apparently meritorious issue not raised in the Anders brief.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987)
- Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1988)
- Brown v. State, 508 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Jones v. State, 507 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Riddell v. State, 509 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)