DAVID F. REEVES, 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 a scrivenor's error in the written sentence must be corrected and that court costs cannot be imposed without notice and a determination of ability to pay.
The appellant was sentenced for failure to appear, but the written sentence contained a discrepancy regarding consecutive versus concurrent running of…
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 Imposition Of Court Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Acting Chief Judge.
David F. Reeves seeks correction of his sentence for failure to appear and alleges error in the imposition of costs upon him. We find merit in both his points on appeal.
At a hearing in Charlotte County the appellant was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement in cases 87-810, 87-811, 87-812. At the time the appellant was also serving a sentence in Pinellas County. The trial court pronounced that the sentences imposed in Charlotte County were to run concurrently with each other and that the sentence in this case, no. 87-812, was to run consecutively to the Pinellas County sentence. However, the written sentence reflects that the sentence in this case is to run consecutively to the sentence in case no. 87-810 and concurrently with the Pinel-las County sentence. The appellant argues, and the state agrees, that this is a scrivenor’s error. Therefore, we remand for correction of the written judgment and sentence to reflect that the sentence for failure to appear in case no. 87-812 is to run concurrently with the sentence in case no. 87-810 and consecutively to the sentence in Pinellas County.
The appellant also correctly argues that the trial court erred in imposing court costs against him without notice and without determining that he had the ability to pay. See Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984).
Accordingly, we strike the costs without prejudice to the state to seek reimposition of the costs after notice and hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
THREADGILL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Futch v. State, 556 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…PER CURIAM. We deny the motion to withdraw because counsel raises in the Anders brief the meritorious issue of the imposition of costs without a determination that appellant has the ability to pay such costs. Reeves v. State, 522 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). However, having raised that issue in the brief, we see no need of requiring the public defender to submit an additional brief on this issue. Appellant raises no other issue, and a review of the sentencing hearing reveals that app…
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)