LARRY BERNARD PACE, 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 trial court erred in denying a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordering payments under a statute that does not apply to collateral criminal proceedings.
Larry Pace sought to proceed in forma pauperis for an appeal of a denial of postconviction relief. The trial court initially ordered payments under se…
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 Collateral Criminal Proceeding cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Larry Bernard Pace seeks review of the trial court’s partial denial of his motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis pursuant to section 57.085, Florida Statutes (1997). Because we find the trial court entered its order in error, we reverse.
In connection with an appeal of the trial court’s summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, Pace filed a motion to proceed on appeal m forma pauperis. On February 9, 1999, the trial court initially denied Pace’s motion, citing section 57.085(5), and ordered Pace “to make monthly payments of no less than 20 percent of the balance of the prisoner’s trust account (if any) as payment of court costs and fees.” Later, the trial court revisited its decision and determined that Pace’s appeal was not subject to section 57.085. The trial court accordingly vacated its earlier order, but without explanation, refused to reimburse Pace for the court costs that were paid from his prisoner trust account under the vacated order. Section 57.085(10) clearly states that this statutory provision does not apply to collateral criminal proceedings. The trial court therefore had no authority to order Pace to pay any court costs and fees. Accordingly, the trial court shall enter an appropriate order consistent herewith to reimburse Pace for all of the court costs paid from his prisoner trust account under the vacated order of February 9, 1999.
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and SALCINES and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Huffman v. Moore, 778 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…] family. Accordingly, if Appellant remains indigent, the trial court shall enter an appropriate order consistent herewith to reimburse Appellant for all of the court costs paid voluntarily by him directly to the clerk. See generally, Pace v. State, 763 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion. KAHN, BROWNING and LEWIS, JJ., CONCUR.…
-
Rankin v. State, 910 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…fendant to pay any court costs and fees associated with a collateral criminal proceeding, such as for postconviction relief. See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Small v. Crosby, 877 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Pace v. State, 763 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. PLEUS, C.J., GRIFFIN and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. . After Rankin appealed, the trial court attempted to correct the error by entering an order removing the lien on Rankin’s inmate a…