RICHARD D. LUNDY, 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.
Affirmed grand theft conviction and sentence, but reversed imposition of costs due to lack of notice and opportunity to be heard.
A trial court errs in imposing costs without affording the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard.
[1] A trial court must provide a defendant with notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposing costs as part of a criminal sentence.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard D. Lundy was convicted of grand theft and sentenced by the trial court, which also imposed costs without providing him notice or an opportunit…
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 Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Chief Judge.
Appellant, Richard D. Lundy, appeals his judgment and sentence resulting from his conviction for grand theft. We find no error in regard to his conviction and, therefore, affirm his conviction and sentence, with the exception of costs imposed.
We do find, however, that the trial judge erred in imposing costs without affording appellant his due process rights of notice and an opportunity to be heard in regard to the imposition of those costs. Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1988); Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). We decline to readdress and certify this due process issue to the Florida Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of recent federal decisions on this question. See United States v. Cooper, 870 F. 2d 586 (11th Cir.1989); United States v. Rivera-Velez, 839 F. 2d 8 (1st Cir.1988); United States v. Pagan, 785 F. 2d 378 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1017, 107 S.Ct. 667, 93 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986). We find the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Jenkins and its progeny to be unequivocal and not the proper subject of a renewed certification from this court.
We, therefore, strike the imposition of costs and remand to the trial court, which may reimpose costs if the appropriate notice and opportunity to be heard is afforded appellant.
RYDER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Minor v. State, 566 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the defendant’s convictions but strike the imposition of court costs and the attorney’s lien without prejudice to the state seeking reassessment after a proper notice and hearing. Lundy v. State, 559 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). RYDER, A.C.J., and HALL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.…
-
Johnson v. State, 563 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…and sentencing for racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, and trafficking in cocaine. We strike the costs which were imposed without affording defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard. See Tucker v. State, 559 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). As to the other contentions on appeal, we affirm. See Ramos v. State, 529 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Buenoano v. State, 527 So. 2d 194 (Fla.1988); Nodal v. State, 524 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (contra Llabona v. State,…
-
Bell v. State, 564 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…heard. Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1988); Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). As we have recently stated, we see no need to certify the issue because of recent federal decisions interpreting a similar federal statute. Lundy v. State, 559 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). We, therefore, affirm the appellant’s convictions and sentences but vacate the order imposing costs. On remand, the trial court may reimpose costs if the proper notice and opportunity to be heard are given the appellant. The ap…
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
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1988)
- Gill v. United States, 479 U.S. 1017 (U.S. 1986)
- Smith v. United States, 479 U.S. 1017 (U.S. 1986)
- United States v. Pagan, 785 F.2d 378 (2d Cir. 1986)
- United States v. Cooper, 870 F.2d 586 (11th Cir. 1989)
- United States v. José Rivera-Velez, 839 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1988)