KENNETH LEONARD GATLIN, 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.
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the order imposing costs of prosecution because no written order was entered and the oral order was made after the notice of appeal was filed. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose costs of prosecution after a timely notice of appeal has been filed.
[2] An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review an order imposing costs of prosecution when no written order exists in the record on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and ordered to pay costs of prosecution. The trial court made an oral order fo…
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 Costs Of Prosecution cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant challenges his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and the order requiring him to pay certain costs of prosecution. We find error only in the imposition of costs of prosecution.
First, there is no written order requiring appellant to pay the costs of prosecution. Although the bench notes and the transcript reflect that those costs were ordered, the record on appeal contains no final written order concerning costs. Accordingly, this court has no jurisdiction. Rivera v. Dade County, 485 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
We cannot remedy this situation, however, by merely relinquishing jurisdiction for entry of a proper written order because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter the oral order imposing costs in the first place. Although the court had reserved jurisdiction at sentencing to consider imposing costs for the prosecutor’s salary and the police investigation, when the court actually ordered those costs, it was without jurisdiction to do so because appellant had already filed his timely notice of appeal, wresting jurisdiction from the trial court and vesting it here. Gonzalez v. State, 384 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
We, therefore, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction with instructions that the court may reimpose those investigative costs that may be properly imposed so long as the court had reserved jurisdiction to impose them at the original sentencing hearing. In that regard, we observe that, contrary to appellant's challenge, the state’s affidavit setting forth the costs of prosecution falls under the exception to the hearsay rule contained in section 90.803(8), Florida Statutes (1991), and was properly admitted as a statement reduced to writing setting forth the activities of the office. Further, under Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), rev. denied, 618 So. 2d 211 (Fla.1993), the state is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees as part of the costs of prosecution.
Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Marinelli v. State, 706 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…titution was ordered, the record on appeal contains no final written order concerning restitution. This [*1376] court lacks jurisdiction to review orders which have not been reduced to writing. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b), 9.020(g); Gatlin v. State, 618 So. 2d 765, 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Phillips v. Albertson’s Inc., 472 So. 2d 513, 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). This, however, does not dispose of the issue. Because Marinelli had already filed his notice of appeal at the time the court orally ordered restitution,…
-
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Pollari, 228 So. 3d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…bsite allowing users to estimate potential military benefits based upon users’ assumptions about the future were inadmissible under section 90.803(8), as they “d[id] not simply set forth the activities of a government agency”), with Gatlin v. State, 618 So. 2d 765, 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (finding that state’s affidavit detailing costs of prosecution fell within first category of the public records exception). The Reports also do not fall within the second category of the public records exception, as they wer…
-
Sewar v. State, 640 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…strike these fees and costs. First, the record reflects that the order assessing these amounts was entered after the notice of appeal was filed in this case. The trial court was therefore without jurisdiction to enter the order. See Gatlin v. State, 618 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Second, notice and opportunity to contest fees and costs assessed pursuant to section 27.56(1) is a prerequisite to imposition of these fees and costs. See Farmer v. State, 617 So. 2d 447 (Fla.1993). The record contains no notice…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Fuse v. State, 384 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Macaria Rivera v. Dade Cnty., 485 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)