RICHARD CLARK, 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.
Trial court erred in imposing costs against appellant without notice or opportunity to be heard; costs order reversed.
A trial court must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposing costs against a defendant.
[1] A trial court must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposing costs against a defendant, and failure to do so constitutes reversible error.
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 law is well-set in Florida that notice and a hearing are necessary”
Court rejecting state's argument to change established Florida law on cost imposition procedures
The trial court imposed costs against appellant Clark without providing him notice or an opportunity to be heard.…
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
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Appellant alleges it was error for the trial court to impose costs against him without notice or an opportunity to be heard.
Appellee concedes that it was error under the cases cited by appellant. Harriet v. State, 520 So. 2d 271 (Fla.1988); Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1988); Morgan v. State, 527 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Morris v. State, 524 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). However, says the state, we should recede from Morgan and Morris and issue an opinion in conflict with Harriet and Mays. In support of its position the state cites United States v. Cooper, 870 F. 2d 586 (11th Cir.1989) and United States v. Rivera-Velez, 839 F. 2d 8 (1st Cir.1988), both of which hold that no violation of any indigent person’s rights occur until the state seeks to enforce payment of court-assessed costs. See also United States v. Pagan, 785 F. 2d 378 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1017, 107 S.Ct. 667, 93 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986). The law is well-set in Florida that notice and a hearing are necessary, Wood v. State, 544 So. 2d 1004 (Fla.1989); this court is not the one to change it. Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d. 431 (Fla.1973).
The order assessing costs is reversed. If the court seeks to impose costs again then it may do so after proper notice to appellant and an opportunity given him to be heard.
Costs order REVERSED.
W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donovan v. State, 572 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…strike the award of costs without prejudice to a new determination of the matter by the trial court after proper notice and opportunity to be heard is afforded the appellant. See McMahon v. State, 561 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Clark v. State, 560 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). We affirm the conviction for organized fraud, reverse all of the convictions for grand theft, reverse all but one of the four RICO convictions, affirm the remaining RICO conviction, affirm the forgery convictions, affirm the co…
-
Laster v. State, 564 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…tice and an opportunity to be heard. We agree. Henriquez v. State, 545 So. 2d 1340 (Fla.1989); Wood v. State, 544 So. 2d 1004 (Fla.1989); Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1988); Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). See also Clark v. State, 560 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Rowe v. State, 558 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Accordingly, the order assessing costs must be reversed and this matter remanded with permission for the trial court to impose costs after proper notice and a hearing. AFFIRMED…
-
Williams v. State, 576 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…osed without notice and hearing. See Wood v. State, 544 So. 2d 1004 (Fla.1989); Harriel v. State, 520 So. 2d 271 (Fla.1988); Burgess v. State, 569 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); McMahon v. State, 561 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Clark v. State, 560 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part. COWART, GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1988)
- Wood v. State, 544 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1989)
- Harriel v. State, 520 So. 2d 271 (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)
- Morris v. State, 524 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)