EDWARD MARSHALL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
EDWARD MARSHALL, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
656 So. 2d 261
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1995)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Edward Marshall appeals his conviction and sentence for trafficking in cocaine. We affirm on all issues except the court’s order assessing investigative costs in a restitution order, which lists a narcotics and crime unit as a victim. Appellant was neither given notice nor an opportunity to be heard, the record does not reveal any consideration of the appellant’s ability to pay, the order does not recite statutory authority for the imposition of these costs, the state did not document these costs, and the costs were not imposed in oral sentencing. We, therefore, strike these costs imposed on Marshall.
ERVIN, MINER and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lynis Sermons, Jr. v. State, 685 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…PER CURIAM. We affirm appellant’s convictions, but remand with directions to correct the written judgment and sentence to conform to the oral pronouncement of the trial court. See Willis v. State, 656 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The trial court orally imposed concurrent life sentences for counts I and II, together with a concurrent 30-year sentence for count III. However, the written judgment and sentence reflects the imposition of three concurrent life…
-
Frost v. State, 769 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…ount rather than only on the burglary count. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence, we should remand for the trial court to conform the written sentence to the oral pronouncement. See Willis v. State, 656 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Accordingly, this case is remanded with instructions for the written sentence to be conformed to the oral pronouncement. Upon remand, appellant need not be present for the correction of the sentence since correction is merely a…
-
Polee v. State, 773 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…teen years. Normally, where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentencing documents, the matter would be remanded to the trial court to conform the written sentence to the oral pronouncement. See Willis v. State, 656 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). In this case, that solution is unacceptable as the trial court’s orally pronounced sentence exceeds the fifteen year statutory maximum for this offense by two days. We conclude the trial judge recognized the error and corrected…