SUSAN LYNN ACANKTA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Appellant complains about $3.00 in costs imposed against her, pursuant to 943.25(4), Florida Statutes (1991), on the ground that that statute does not authorize such costs. Bauman v. State, 600 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). It is true that subsection (4) does not authorize costs, but subsection (3) of that statute does. The effect of subsection (3) was not raised in Bauman. We, therefore, decline to set aside the cost imposition. However, we write to point out that the printed form judgment refers to the wrong subsection and should be corrected for future use.
Additionally, the trial court orally imposed a public defender fee of $300.00 but did not include it in the judgment and sentence. The trial court must correct the judgment and sentence to conform to the oral pronouncement. Otherwise, the judgments and sentences are affirmed. .
FRANK, C.J., and RYDER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Daniels v. State, 656 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…e imposition of an additional $2 cost. The referenced sections did impose these costs under the 1985 version of section 943.25, Florida Statutes. Since that time the section has been modified.* We affirm the $3 and $2 cost awards. Acankta v. State, 622 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The current authorization for the costs the lower court imposed is section 943.25(3) and section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes. We note the supreme court has amended the form to reflect the current statutory authority for the impo…
Authorities Cited
- Bauman v. State, 600 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)