JOHNNY E. MILTON, 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 criminal judgment but struck $255 investigative costs imposed without compliance with statutory requirements.
The court affirmed the judgment and sentences except for striking $255 in investigative costs imposed without compliance with section 939.01, Florida Statutes.
[1] Investigative costs imposed under section 939.01, Florida Statutes, must comply with statutory procedures; costs imposed without such compliance are subject to striking w…
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 intelligence“We strike the imposition of $255 for investigative costs from the judgment, without prejudice to the State, on remand, seeking reimposition after complying with the requirements of section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1995).”
Court's disposition regarding investigative costs
Johnny E. Milton appealed his criminal conviction. The trial court imposed $255 in investigative costs as part of the judgment.…
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 Direct Criminal Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In accordance with In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla.1991), our independent review of the record discloses one “relatively minor” issue. We strike the imposition of $255 for investigative costs from the judgment, without prejudice to the State, on remand, seeking reimposition after complying with the requirements of section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1995). See Mickler v. State, 682 So. 2d 607, 609-610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We affirm the judgment and sentences in all other respects.
Appellate counsel also pointed out in the Anders brief that the trial court’s oral denial of Mr. Milton’s motion to withdraw his plea might have arguable merit. See In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d at 151. Our review of the record does not convince us that Mr. Milton intended his unsworn, informal, oral request to withdraw his plea to meet the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 or Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1975). Further, a trial court’s oral ruling on such a postjudgment motion is not appealable. See Hunter v. State, 583 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Accordingly, we agree with appellate counsel that, except for the imposition of costs, there are no arguable issues for direct appeal.
Affirmed as modified.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and FULMER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1975)
- In re App. Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991)
- Mickler v. State, 682 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Hunter v. State, 583 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)