LUIS LOPEZ, 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 four specific costs imposed on the appellant were improperly assessed and must be stricken from the judgment and sentence.
The appellant challenged several costs imposed as part of his judgment and sentence. The costs at issue included a discretionary cost, prosecution cos…
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
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Luis Lopez, challenges that portion of his judgment and sentence imposing certain costs. We conclude that four costs were improperly imposed.
We strike a $2 cost assessed pursuant to section 943.25(18), Florida Statutes (1993). This cost is discretionary, and since the trial court failed to give Lopez notice of this cost, this cost must be stricken. See Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Second, we strike the $150 assessed for prosecution costs. At the sentencing hearing, there was no request for such cost by an agency nor was there documentation supporting the cost as required by section 939.01(1), Florida Statutes (1993).
Third, we strike the assessment of $185 for the Hillsborough County Court Improvement Fund because this assessment is not authorized as a cost under any existing statute. Reyes.
Fourth, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a $135 fine for the Drug Abuse Trust Fund. In Reyes, this court held that the imposition of such cost is proper. However, Lopez’s written sentencing document reflects the imposition of a $150 fine for the Drug Abuse Trust Fund. We strike this cost because the written judgment does not conform to the oral pronouncement. See Shorter v. State, 666 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
Accordingly, we strike the foregoing costs, and we affirm the remaining portion of the judgment and sentence.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sola v. TWC THE Wise Computer, Inc., 834 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Robinson v. Sun Bank and Trust Co., 685 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).…
-
Quintana v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 29 So. 3d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…at the claimant’s notice was not provided to her in a timely manner, and Florida law does not permit good cause exceptions to the dismissal rule, we are bound to affirm the order of the Appeals Commission below. See Robinson v. Sun Bank & Trust Co., 685 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Riegler v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 633 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Leon v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 476 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Affirmed.…
-
Cassidy v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Humana Med. Plan, Inc., 695 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…t the notice of appeal was untimely, only that she was confused about the deadlines. Accordingly, we are compelled to accept the appeals referee’s determination that the appeal was untimely and affirm the order. See Robinson v. Sun Bank & Trust Co., 685 So. 2d 1325, 1326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Affirmed. CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Judd v. State, 666 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)