JOHN F. STEWART, 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 fines imposed were not excessive, but the court costs were improperly imposed without statutory authority and notice.
John Stewart appealed his sentence, challenging the imposition of $60,000 in fines and $1000 in court costs. He argued the fines were excessive and th…
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 Statutory Authority For Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
John Stewart appeals those parts of his sentences for various offenses imposing fines totalling $60,000 and costs totaling $1000. He contends that the fines are excessive and that the trial court failed to provide adequate notice of its intention to impose court costs and to cite statutory authority for the costs when it orally imposed them at the sentencing hearing. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We find no merit in any of the arguments the appellant advances in support of his contention regarding the fines. Trial courts are specifically authorized to impose fines in addition to any other authorized penalty. § 775.083, Fla.Stat. (1985). The fact that the appellant is indigent does not preclude imposition of the fines, Nash v. State, 434 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 438 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1983), but if the appellant is unable to pay them, the trial court may defer payment to a date certain. § 775.083(2), Fla.Stat. (1985).
We do find merit in the appellant's contention regarding the court costs. The failure of the trial court to cite statutory authority when it imposed the court costs deprived the appellant of the opportunity to object to the costs. See Brown v. State, 506 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 515 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1987). Accordingly, we strike the court costs without prejudice to the state to seek to reimpose them. Should the trial court again decide to impose court costs, it must provide the appellant with adequate notice as required by Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions consistent with this opinion.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pisano v. State, 539 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…authority and that the written order does not conform to the court’s oral pronouncement at the sentencing hearing. Accordingly, we reverse on this issue on the authority of Daniels v. State, 524 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), and Stewart v. State, 522 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Our reversal is without prejudice to the state to seek costs anew after affording the appellant proper notice and opportunity to be heard. Addressing briefly one other issue raised by appellant — that the court erred in calling…
-
King v. State, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D662 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…ed its decision in Brown, and reversed a cost order because the “oral pronouncement included no statutory authority for the assessment.” Moore v. State, 525 So. 2d 1031, 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (emphasis added). That same year, in Stewart v. State, 522 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), the court reversed a cost order and identified one basis for the rule: “[t]he failure of the trial court to cite statutory authority when it imposed the court costs deprived the appellant of the opportunity to object to the costs…
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Alphonso Brown v. State, 506 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Nash v. State, 434 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)