DAVID WRENN, 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 for felony criminal mischief but struck $103 in court improvement fund costs and remanded for hearing on prosecution costs and restitution.
A trial court errs by assessing costs to a court improvement fund without legal authority and by imposing restitution without conducting a hearing when the defendant requests one.
[1] A trial court lacks legal authority to assess costs payable to a court improvement fund absent statutory authorization.
[2] The state must establish the amount of prosecution costs at a hearing prior to the court's imposition of such costs.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 state must establish the amount of the costs of prosecution prior to imposition by the court”
Court citing Sutton v. State for the requirement that prosecution costs be established before imposition.
David Wrenn was convicted of felony criminal mischief. The trial court imposed various costs including $103 to the Hillsborough Court Improvement Fund…
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 Richardson V. State cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
David Wrenn appeals the judgment and sentence entered upon his conviction for felony criminal mischief. He argues the trial court erred in failing to find a discovery violation and in assessing various costs items. Because we find no violation of Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971), we affirm the conviction, but strike the imposition of $103.00 for the court improvement fund, and remand to the trial court for a hearing on the costs of prosecution and restitution.
In Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), this court held there is no legal authority for assessment of costs payable to the Hillsborough Court Improvement Fund. Therefore, that cost item is stricken. We also held in Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), that the state must establish the amount of the costs of prosecution prior to imposition by the court. Because no hearing was held on this issue, we must remand to the trial court for the proper determination. Finally, on remand the trial court should again address the issue of restitution. It is clear from the record that appellant asked for a hearing on restitution, and the trial court denied the request. Despite the denial, the court ordered restitution in the amount of $250.00. A hearing should have been conducted. Bell v. State, 652 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We affirm the judgment, strike the court improvement fund costs, and remand for a hearing to determine the costs of prosecution and restitution.
FRANK, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Bell v. State, 652 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)