RONALD DEAN TAYLOR, 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 struck a civil restitution lien for noncompliance with statutory requirements and remanded cost assessments for clarification of statutory authority, while affirming the judgment in all other respects.
A civil restitution lien is invalid when it fails to identify the person or entity in whose favor it is imposed, and cost assessments must be remanded when the trial court fails to reference statutory authority.
[1] A civil restitution lien imposed under section 960.292(3), Florida Statutes, is invalid if it fails to identify the person or entity in whose favor the lien is imposed.
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 intelligenceRonald Dean Taylor was convicted and the trial court imposed a civil restitution lien and costs totaling $930. The lien did not identify the person or…
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 Civil Restitution Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In accordance with Lund v. State, 658 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), we strike the civil restitution hen order entered in this ease, based on its noncomphance with the requirements of section 960.292(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). As was the case in Lund, the lien at issue here is invalid in that it does not identify the person or entity in whose favor it is imposed. In view of this disposition, we dechne to reach the other issues presented by appehant regarding the interpretation of the statute and its constitutionality, and the absence of the defendant at the time the lien was imposed.
Appehant further argues that the trial court erred in imposing costs without reference to statutory authority. The state acknowledges and we agree that this issue should be remanded to the trial court for clarification as to the nature of each assessment and the statutory authority underlying it. We therefore strike the portion of the trial court’s order imposing costs totaling $930, without prejudice to the reimposition of these costs upon comphance with proper procedures. See Bryant v. State, 661 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Bradshaw v. State, 638 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). In ah other respects, the judgment and sentence of the trial court is affirmed.
JOANOS, MICKLE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., 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)
- Torey Bradshaw and Alford R. Martin v. State, 638 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Bryant v. State, 661 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Bonner v. State, 658 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)