DARRELL SUTTON, 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.
Darrell Sutton appealed his conviction and sentence, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress and the imposition of court costs. The court affirmed the denial of the suppression motion but reversed and remanded regarding the improper imposition of court costs without proper statutory citation, notice, or consideration of the defendant's financial resources.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress evidence. The court reversed the imposition of court costs, holding that statutorily mandated costs require statutory citation in the record, discretionary costs require notice and opportunity to be heard with statutory authority cited, and prosecution costs under section 939.01 require proof of the amount and consideration of the defendant's financial resources.
[1] Statutorily mandated court costs can be imposed without notice to a defendant, but the record must contain a citation to the proper statutory authority supporting the ass…
[2] Discretionary costs, such as those for a court improvement fund, a drug education fund, or costs of prosecution, cannot be imposed unless a defendant is given notice and…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the record must contain a citation to the proper statutory authority supporting the assessment of such costs”
Establishes the requirement that statutorily mandated court costs must be supported by statutory citation in the record
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSutton entered an open plea of nolo contendere to various criminal offenses while reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. …
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 Imposition Of Court Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
LAZZARA, Judge.
Darrell Sutton challenges the judgment and sentence of the trial court. He raises two issues on appeal. He first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We find no merit in this argument and affirm.
In his second argument, we again confront a situation in which a defendant complains of the improper imposition of comí costs. We agree with Sutton’s contention and reverse and remand for further proceedings. In doing so, we hope by this opinion to clarify an area of the law that continues to spawn unnecessary appellate review.
Sutton entered an open plea of nolo con-tendere to various criminal offenses, specifically reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The trial court sentenced him to a period of probation and orally announced that as a special condition he was to pay $600 in court costs and $100 to the Hillsborough County drug education fund. The trial court gave no statutory basis for the imposition of these costs and did not give Sutton any prior notice of its intent to make an assessment for the drug education fund.
The trial court later rendered a written judgment, as well as a written order of probation. Although the judgment and order referred to the costs, neither cited to the statutory basis authorizing their imposition. Additionally, even though the judgment did not break down the $600 costs into specific categories, the probation order did delineate them as follows: $235 for court costs; $250 for the court improvement fund; and $115 for costs of prosecution.1
We recognize that statutorily mandated court costs2 can be imposed without notice to a defendant. State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla.1991). However, as we have consistently held, the record must contain a citation to the proper statutory authority supporting the assessment of such costs. E.g., Brown v. State, 506 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 515 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1987). In this case, the record contains no such statutory reference.
We have also held that discretionary costs such as those assessed for the court improvement fund, the drug education fund, and costs of prosecution cannot be imposed unless a defendant is given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and the record recites the statutory authority for their imposition. Williams v. State, 604 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The record here fails to reflect compliance with these requirements.
Finally, we hold again that if costs of prosecution are based on section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1993), then the state has the burden of proving the amount of these costs, and the trial court must consider the defendant’s financial resources before imposing them. Tennie v. State, 593 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). This procedure was not followed in this case.
We, therefore, strike the costs imposed on Sutton. On remand, the state may seek to reimpose these costs consistent with the law expressed in this opinion. Williams; Wray v. State, 596 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur. . The record does not reflect why the assessment for the drug education fund was omitted from the probation order. . See, e.g., §§ 27.3455(1); 939.015; 939.017; 943.25(3); 960.20, Fla.Stat. (1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (96 total)
-
Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…tion was imposed. The court granted rehearing en banc in this case because the panel opinion had implicitly approved an oral lump sum imposition of costs on the same day that such a procedure was disapproved by a different panel-in Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Upon careful review of the costs assessed in this case, we have determined that this lump sum approach to costs does not allow for proper assessment of discretionary costs and presents serious difficulties for the clerks of court…1 / 4
-
Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…eld that the law permits the imposition of statutorily mandated court costs without notice to a defendant, nevertheless, “the record must contain a citation to the proper statutory authority supporting the assessment of such costs.” Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032, 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). See also Williams v. State, 596 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (court lacks power to impose costs in criminal case unless specifically authorized by statute). Thus, as in Sutton, these costs must be stricken but without prej…
-
Torey Bradshaw and Alford R. Martin v. State, 638 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…and no right to or liability for costs exists in the absence of statutory authorization. Wood, 248 So. 2d at 177. See also Scott v. State, 629 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Masters v. State, 358 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Although statutorily mandated costs may be imposed without notice to a defendant, State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla.1991), the record should contain a citation to the statutory authority which supports such costs. Sutton. In…
Previewing 3 of 96 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1991)
- Alphonso Brown v. State, 506 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Tennie v. State, 593 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Specialty Ins. Underwriters Inc. v. Boyd, 604 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Williams v. State, 604 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Wray v. State, 596 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Parrish v. State, 596 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)