DAVE SAMUELS, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction but vacated costs imposed without proper statutory citation and authority.
Assessed costs must have specific statutory authority identified on the sentencing form to permit appellate review, and drug and alcohol costs cannot be imposed for felony convictions.
[1] Assessed costs must be identified by specific statute number on the sentencing form to permit appellate review of their authority.
[2] Drug and alcohol costs cannot be imposed upon conviction of a felony absent statutory authorization.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Assessed costs whose statutory authority is not specifically identified on the sentencing form should have a reference by statute number to permit appellate review. Otherwise, this court is left to guess at the authority.”
Court explaining the requirement for statutory citation of assessed costs
Appellant Samuels was convicted and the trial court imposed FDLE and drug and alcohol costs without identifying the statutory authority on the sentenc…
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 Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, appellant raises two issues: whether it was error to deny his motion to suppress evidence because the state failed to establish that his consent to search was given voluntarily and whether the “FDLE” and “drug and alcohol” costs were properly imposed. We affirm the conviction, but agree that the trial court’s imposition of these costs was flawed.
Assessed costs whose statutory authority is not specifically identified on the sentencing form1 should have a reference by statute number to permit appellate review. Otherwise, this court is left to guess at the authority. See Thomas v. State, 633 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); see also Bradshaw v. State, 638 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We surmise that “FDLE” costs refers to costs authorized under section 939.01(1)-, Florida Statutes (1993), but this is not ascertainable on this record. Further, there appears to be no statutory authority for the imposition of drug and alcohol costs where a defendant is convicted of a felony. See § 939.017, Fla.Stat. (1993). Accordingly, that portion of the sentence assessing FDLE and drug and alcohol costs against the defendant is stricken. The state may, if appropriate, seek reimposition.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART; COSTS VACATED; and REMANDED.
COBB, W. SHARP, and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.986(c).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Madison v. State, 664 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…that this court has followed the practice of requiring that the trial judge identify the statutory authority for costs imposed in the written sentence or order of probation. See Brooks v. State, 649 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Samuels v. State, 649 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), cause dismissed, 657 So. 2d 1163 (Fla.1995); [*1141] Valdez v. State, 639 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). In a case where the statutory basis is not clear or easily ascertainable, the appellate court is left to guess at the aut…
-
Pazo v. State, 684 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…igative costs in the amount of $150.00 to be disbursed to New Smyrna Beach Police Department.” In so ruling, the trial court failed to cite any statutory authority for the imposition of these costs. This failure constitutes error. Samuels v. State, 649 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), dismissed, 657 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1995) (assessed costs whose statutory authority is not specifically identified on the sentencing form should have a reference by statute number to permit appellate review).1 [*899] Additionally,…
-
Brown v. State, 666 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…those costs. We recognize that, in the past, this court has stated that assessed costs should reference the statute number if the sentencing form does not specifically identify the statutory authority for imposing those costs. See Samuels v. State, 649 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). However, we clarify Samuels and hold that the specific statute number is unnecessary where, as here, the defendant has had notice and an opportunity to be heard, and the court’s oral pronouncement and written order are spec…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Torey Bradshaw and Alford R. Martin v. State, 638 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Arjomand v. Alec J. Ross, 633 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Lenthius Daryl Thomas v. State, 633 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)