JAMES MICHAEL RAULERSON, 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 costs imposed without notice or hearing must be reversed and remanded for proceedings compliant with due process.
Appellant was convicted of sale or delivery of cannabis and had costs imposed without notice or a hearing. The state conceded the lack of notice.…
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 Assessment Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
We affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence for sale or delivery of cannabis. Cruz v. State, 465 So. 2d 516 (Fla.1985); § 90.803(21), Fla.Stat. (1987).
However, we reverse that portion of the sentence which imposes costs upon the appellant, because costs were imposed without notice to him, and without a hearing on the matter. “It is well settled that before costs may be assessed pursuant to sections 960.20, 943.25, and 27.3455, the state must provide a defendant with adequate notice and an opportunity to object to the assessment.” Moore v. State, 530 So. 2d 61, 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), citing, among others, Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1988). “Furthermore, the imposition of such costs may be challenged even though no objection was raised in the trial court.” Moore, 530 So. 2d at 64, citing, among others, Harriel v. State, 520 So. 2d 271 (Fla.1988).
In the instant case, there is nothing in the record to indicate appellant received adequate notice regarding any of the costs imposed. In fact, the state concedes this issue in its brief. Therefore, the assessment of costs must be reversed and remanded for proceedings conducted in compliance with due process requirements.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SHIVERS and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Petition of Jane DOE for a Judicial Waiver of Parental Notice of Termination of Pregnancy. Jane Doe, 973 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…nc Consideration “To Maintain Uniformity in the Court’s Decisions” Ms. Doe’s motion for rehearing en banc also cited this reason as a basis to grant her motion, claiming that the panel decision in this case conflicts with Doe-Polk and In re E.B.L., 544 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). My discussion immediately above explains why I do not believe her case conflicts with Doe-Polk. The panel concluded that it would be futile to remand, especially given the time constraints imposed by the statute and the appellate…
-
Collins v. State, 546 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…opportunity to object to the assessment. Costs may, of course, be assessed on remand after adequate notice and opportunity have been afforded. Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1988); Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984); Raulerson v. State, 544 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). In addition, as it appears that several of the written sentences are inconsistent with the oral pronouncement of those sentences, we direct the trial court on remand to correct the written sentences to conform to the oral sent…
-
Ward v. State, 558 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…egard to the second point, before costs may be assessed pursuant to sections 960.20, 943.25, and 27.3455, Florida Statutes, the state must provide the defendant with adequate notice and an opportunity to object to the assessment. Raulerson v. State, 544 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Moore v. State, 530 So. 2d 61, 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); see also Wood v. State, 544 So. 2d 1004 (Fla.1989). Since Ward did not receive notice regarding any of the costs imposed, we reverse the trial court’s assessment of costs wi…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1988)
- Cruz v. State, 465 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1985)
- Harriel v. State, 520 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1988)
- Moore v. State, 530 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)