PAUL TESKY, 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 a discretionary cost imposed without notice and opportunity to be heard must be stricken. The written judgment must also be corrected to reflect the actual offense adjudicated.
Appellant challenged his judgments and sentences for resisting an officer and criminal mischief. A specific cost was imposed without notice, and the w…
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 Discretionary Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
The appellant, Paul Tesky, challenges his judgments and sentences for resisting an officer with violence, resisting an officer without violence, and criminal mischief. We find merit only in his contention that the trial court erred in imposing a cost of $2.00 pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993), without announcing that cost at sen tencing. That cost was a discretionary cost, which required notice and an opportunity to be heard. Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Priest v. State, 20 Fla.L.Weekly 84, — So. 2d- [1994 WL 714440] (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 28, 1994); Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Since Tesky was not given notice and an opportunity to be heard as to that cost, the $2.00 imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13) is hereby stricken.
We further remand the instant case for correction of the written judgment, which improperly reflects that Tesky was adjudicated guilty of the offense of escape. The record shows that though Tesky was originally charged with escape, that charge was reduced to resisting an officer without violence pursuant to Tesky’s plea agreement.
Accordingly, the instant cause is remanded for corrections. Tesky’s judgments and sentences are otherwise affirmed.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)