LEWIS JAMES TUCKER, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed battery conviction but struck costs imposed without due process notice and opportunity to be heard.
Trial court erred in imposing costs without affording the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard.
[1] Trial court violates due process by imposing costs without affording defendant notice and opportunity to be heard.
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 intelligence“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”
Court's statement of the error found in the trial court's cost imposition
Lewis James Tucker was convicted of battery and sentenced by the trial court, which also imposed costs.…
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 Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Chief Judge.
Appellant, Lewis James Tucker, appeals his judgment and sentence resulting from his conviction for the offense of battery. We find no error in 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
Authorities 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)