ARTHUR L. WYATT, 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.
Court reversed a $200 prosecution cost assessment imposed as a probation condition because the trial court failed to establish the actual costs incurred or the defendant's financial ability to pay them.
A trial court cannot impose prosecution costs without evidence of the actual amount of costs incurred and the defendant's financial ability to pay.
[1] Before imposing prosecution costs on a defendant, the trial court must establish both the actual amount of costs incurred and consider the defendant's financial resources…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 court in determining whether to order costs, and the amount of such costs, shall consider the amount of the costs incurred, the financial resources of the defendant, the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant, any and other factors as it deems appropriate.”
Statutory requirement under section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1993) governing imposition of prosecution costs.
Arthur Wyatt pleaded nolo contendere to selling cocaine and was sentenced to six months in jail followed by three years probation, with an order to pa…
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 Financial Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
Arthur Wyatt pled nolo contendere to a charge of selling cocaine and was sentenced to six months in jail followed by three years probation. As a condition of probation the trial court ordered Wyatt to pay $200.00 for the costs of prosecution. We reverse, as the trial court assessed the costs of prosecution without any evidence of the actual amount of such costs, or the defendant’s financial ability to pay the costs.
The trial court should have complied with section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1993), which provides in pertinent part:
The court in determining whether to order costs, and the amount of such costs, shall consider the amount of the costs incurred, the financial resources of the defendant, the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant, any and other factors as it deems appropriate.
See also Wheeler v. State, 635 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (before prosecution costs can be imposed on defendant, state must demonstrate the amount spent on prosecuting defendant; and the trial court must consider the defendant’s financial resources); Smith v. State, 543 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (state was required to demonstrate amount of cost of prosecution and trial court was required to consider financial resources of defendant, for trial court to be authorized to enter judgment for the costs of prosecution against defendant). Accordingly, we instruct the trial court to delete the $200.00 costs of prosecution as a condition of probation, or hold a hearing to determine the actual amount of such costs and the defendant’s ability to pay them.
HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
TOY v. State, 664 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…e disagree. We reverse because the trial court did not follow the procedures set forth in section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1993) and assessed the cost of prosecution without competent evidence showing the amount of such costs. See Wyatt v. State, 654 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). However, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that appellant should be liable for one fifth of the total amount of the assessed costs. We remand with directions to vacate the order of probation and the final judgment and for a…
Authorities Cited
- Davis Smith, Jr. v. State, 543 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Carlton Leroy Wheeler v. State, 635 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)