CHARLES EDWARD WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1992-07-01
No. 91-00935
RYDER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
601 So. 2d 1277 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1992) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Topics
Delivery Of Cocaine Discretionary Costs Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard Habitual Offender Sentencing

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Delivery Of Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
LEHAN, Chief Judge.

LEHAN, Chief Judge.

Defendant appeals from his judgment and sentence upon his conviction for delivery of cocaine. We find no merit in his contentions that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt and that there was error in classifying him as a habitual offender. As to the costs assessed against him, we affirm in part and reverse in part. We affirm the statutorily mandated costs which are in the amount of $200.00 for court costs and $20.00 for the crimes compensation trust fund. See State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla.1991). We strike the discretionary costs assessed for the court improvement fund, costs of prosecution, the drug abuse fund, and the crime lab fund as defendant was not given proper notice and opportunity to be heard. See Alfonso v. State, 595 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We strike the costs imposed purportedly pursuant to sections 943.25(4) and 943.25(8). See Siplin v. State, 584 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

RYDER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
    …(Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Zachary v. State, 559 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Siplin v. State, 584 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Alfonso v. State, 595 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Gawron v. State, 597 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Williams v. State, 601 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Reberv. State, 611 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Douglas v. State, 627 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Berry v. State, 636 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Carr v. State, 642 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).…
  • Watson v. State, 647 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
    …Anders appeal, we find merit only in appellant’s argument that the imposition of $2.00 in costs was improper because appellant was not given notice and an opportunity to be heard. We agree and order those $2.00 costs stricken. See Williams v. State, 601 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We otherwise affirm. FRANK, C.J., and CAMPBELL and BLUE, JJ., concur.…
  • Madison v. State, 664 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
    …g, prior to their imposition. See Williams v. State, 604 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (cost to county drug abuse fund was not a statutorily mandated cost, and thus had to be stricken for lack of notice or opportunity to be heard); Williams v. State, 601 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (discretionary costs assessed for the court improvement fund, cost of prosecution, the drug abuse fund and the crime lab funds stricken because the defendant was not given notice and opportunity to be heard.) AFFIRMED in part; Co…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw