JAMES WILSON, 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.
James Wilson appealed his robbery conviction on two grounds: an alleged jury instruction error regarding the distinction between theft and robbery, and the trial court's imposition of court costs without determining his ability to pay. The court affirmed the conviction but reversed and remanded on the costs issue.
The court affirmed the denial of the cautionary jury instruction, finding no error in the trial court's handling of the theft versus robbery instruction. However, the court reversed and remanded on the costs issue, holding that the trial court erred by imposing costs without first determining whether Wilson was indigent and able to pay.
[1] A court does not err in denying a motion for a cautionary jury instruction when the court's jury instructions, viewed in the context of the entire record, are not erroneo…
[2] A court errs in assessing court costs against a defendant without inquiring into the defendant's ability to pay, especially after the defendant raises an objection based…
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“The circumstances of this case are simply not analogous to either Raulerson v. State, 102 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1958) or Lester v. State, 458 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), relied on by Wilson.”
The court's reasoning for affirming the denial of the cautionary jury instruction regarding theft versus robbery.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilson was convicted of robbery. After conviction, the trial court imposed court costs of $5,600, an attorney's fee of $400, a Crimes Compensation Tru…
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 Ability To Pay Court Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Wilson appeals his conviction of robbery, and raises two issues. First, he contends that the lower court erred in denying his motion for a cautionary jury instruction after the court misinstructed the jury on the difference between theft and robbery. We have carefully reviewed the statement of the court in the context of the record and find no error in denying appellant’s motion. The circumstances of this case are simply not analogous to either Raulerson v. State, 102 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1958) or Lester v. State, 458 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), relied on by Wilson.
We find merit in appellant’s second point contending that the lower court erred in assessing court costs without inquiring into appellant’s ability to pay. Defense counsel objected to the court’s imposition of costs on the ground that Wilson was indigent and therefore could not pay the costs. Instead of determining whether Wilson was, in fact, indigent, the court noted the objection and proceeded to impose costs of $5,600, an attorney’s fee of $400, a Crimes Compensation Trust Fund assessment of $20, and a Law Enforcement Education Trust Fund fee of $2. (R. 21-247).
The state concedes that if these proceedings did not constitute due process, the court’s imposition of the above costs was error under the law stated in Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1988), Reese v. State, 521 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984).
Because the court did not make any inquiry into Wilson’s ability to pay after Wilson’s counsel objected, we must reverse and remand for that determination. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
SMITH, C.J., and WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1988)
- Raulerson v. State, 102 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1958)
- Lester v. State, 458 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Linwood A. Findley v. State, 521 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)