KAREN ROZIER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
KAREN ROZIER, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
621 So. 2d 589
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1993)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The state concedes that the discretionary costs imposed upon Karen Rozier were assessed without notice or opportunity to be heard contrary to Williams v. State, 591 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). See Klarstrom v. State, 610 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Additionally, the transcript of the sentencing hearing reflects that a “fine” of $455 was orally imposed, but costs were not. The judgment reflects that costs of $405 were imposed, but a fine was not.
We vacate the judgment for costs in the amount of $405 and remand for clarification and entry of an amended judgment after notice and an opportunity to be heard is afforded the defendant.
JUDGMENT VACATED IN PART; CAUSE REMANDED.
W. SHARP, PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tropicana Prods., Inc. v. Gunther, 643 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…vidence on the need for future medical treatment by Dr. Hundley may need to be taken where it is not evident from the JCC’s order what record evidence, if any, the JCC relied upon in making the award. See also Kessler v. Community [*700] Blood Bank, 621 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (JCC’s holding that qualified medical treatment was provided without specific findings as to the reasonableness and necessity of future medical treatment reversed, and the JCC ordered on remand to make appropriate findings in acc…
Authorities Cited
- Pierce v. Dudley Vees and Alice Vees, 610 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Williams v. State, 591 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)