DANIEL LOPEZ, 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.
The court held that the imposition of costs for the Hillsborough County Court Improvement Fund was improper as it was not authorized by state statute.
Daniel Lopez was convicted of several felonies and challenged his judgment and sentence on appeal. One of his contentions was that the trial court err…
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
WHATLEY, Judge.
The appellant, Daniel Lopez, challenges his judgment and sentence for first-degree arson, burglary of a dwelling, third-degree grand theft, criminal mischief, and attempted second-degree arson. He raises six issues on appeal; however, we find merit only in his contention that it was error to impose costs for the Hillsborough County Court Improvement Fund. We, therefore, reverse on that point only.
In Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), this court recently held that there was no legal basis for the assessment of costs payable to the Hillsborough County Court Improvement Fund because such assessment was authorized by county ordinance, not state statute. Therefore, that portion of the trial court’s order directing Lopez to pay $15 to the Hillsborough County Court Improvement Fund was improper. Accordingly, the Hillsborough County Court Improvement Fund cost is stricken. The conviction and sentence of Lopez are, otherwise, affirmed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.