ANSELM LAMONTE WALLACE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ANSELM LAMONTE WALLACE, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
637 So. 2d 385
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1994)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment and sentence imposed in this three count information. However, we strike court costs in excess of $250 assessed pursuant to sections 27.3455(1) and 960.20, Florida Statutes (1991). These costs were imposed per count instead of per case. See Hollingsworth v. State, 632 So. 2d 176, 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Costs assessed per count pursuant to section 943.25, Florida Statutes (1991) are valid and imposed appropriately. Id.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS, C.J., and DAUKSCH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunter v. State, 651 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…llingsworth v. State, 632 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), and Rocker v. State, 640 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), which hold that costs levied under sections 960.20, 943.25 and 27.3455 must be imposed on a per-case basis. See also Wallace v. State, 637 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Spruill v. State, 643 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The state replies that this court should not follow Hollingsworth because Hollings-worth’s charges, although occurring on separate days, were nevertheless charged in a sing…
-
Brenton McNEIL v. State, 162 So. 3d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…e issue of imposition of costs per case versus per count in criminal cases. Of all these decisions, the majority can point to only one that holds imposition of costs per count is appropriate, and it is the one-paragraph decision in Wallace v. State, 637 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), which the majority calls an aberration. If we discard Wallace, as the majority suggests and as I think we should, then the majority opinion takes its place as the only decision to apply costs per count. I do agree that the Legis…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Hollingsworth v. State, 632 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)