ERNEST A. SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ERNEST A. SMITH, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
675 So. 2d 1050
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1996)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
This court withdraws its per curiam affir-mance of May 15, 1996 and substitutes the following opinion.
The court affirms the conviction of defendant, but strikes that portion of the final judgment which assesses prospective appellate costs. See Davis v. State, 641 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
KLEIN, PARIENTE and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reese v. State, 678 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…. Further, the final judgments in both cases ordered defendant to pay prospective appellate costs. This court has repeatedly held that a trial court errs when it assesses appellate costs against a defendant prospectively. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 675 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); In Interest of L.B., 651 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Anderson v. State, 632 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse the assessment of prospective appellate costs and remand on the issue of attorney’s fees t…
Authorities Cited
- Sturgal Christopher Russell v. State, 641 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)