MELVIN DANIELS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice And Hearing Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Melvin Daniels, challenges the judgment entered and the sentences imposed after he was found guilty of resisting or obstructing an officer with violence and battery on a police officer. We affirm the appellant’s convictions and sentences but strike the fine and costs imposed.
Of the points the appellant raised on this appeal, we find merit only in his contention that the trial court erred by orally imposing a $500 fine and $226 in costs upon him without providing any statutory authority for the imposition of either the fine or costs. We, therefore, strike the fine and costs without prejudice to the trial court’s ability to reimpose them after complying with the notice and hearing requirements of Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). If the trial court again imposes a fine and costs, it should provide statutory authority under which each amount is imposed. See Brown v. State, 506 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA), petition for review denied, 515 So. 2d 229 (1987). We affirm the trial court in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gibson v. State, 577 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…lucci v. State, 371 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). We find that since the trial court did not provide the statutory authority for the imposition of the fines in the order or at the sentencing hearing, the fines must be stricken. Daniels v. State, 524 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We also find that Gibson’s argument is sound, and we strike the fines with prejudice to the trial court’s ability to reimpose them. The remainder of Gibson’s judgment and sentence is affirmed. WIGGINTON and MINER, JJ., concur.…
-
Pisano v. State, 539 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…without proper notice, opportunity to object, or statutory 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 iss…
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Alphonso Brown v. State, 506 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)