HERBERT LEACH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1992-08-12
No. 92-0162
DELL and POLEN, JJ., and SEIDLIN, LARRY, Associate Judge, concur.
602 So. 2d 697 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1992) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We hold that appellant received adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before the trial court ordered him to pay $100.00 for costs of prosecution. He did not object to the imposition of costs based on his inability to pay. See § 939.01(6), Fla.Stat. (1991); Miller v. State, 407 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

AFFIRMED.

DELL and POLEN, JJ., and SEIDLIN, LARRY, Associate Judge, concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Dukes v. State, 639 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
    …f demonstrating the financial resources and needs of the defendant is on the defendant. §§ 939.01(5), (6), Fla.Stat. (1993); Kirkland v. State, 629 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Butts v. State, 575 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Leach v. State, 602 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Compare §§ 775.089(6), (7). Based on the record before us, it is clear that Dukes failed to meet her statutory burden below pursuant to section 939.01(6). We find that the appellant’s reliance on Smith v. State is misplaced beca…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw