GEORGE W. STRICKLAND, 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 affirmed the defendant's convictions but reversed the imposition of a discretionary cost because the trial court failed to make the required findings regarding the defendant's ability to pay.
The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and armed burglary. The trial court imposed a discretionary cost without making the statutorily req…
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 Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
George W. Strickland appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and armed burglary, and he challenges the imposition of a discretionary cost. We affirm Strickland’s convictions without opinion and reverse the imposition of the $150 cost.
Strickland argues, and the State properly concedes, that the portion of the sentence requiring Strickland to pay $150 pursuant to section 939.18(1), Florida Statutes (2003), must be reversed. “Section 939.18(l)(b) allows the trial court to impose this discretionary cost if it finds that the person has the ability to pay the cost, and payment of the cost will not interfere with the person’s ability to pay child support and restitution.” Patterson v. State, 796 So. 2d 572, 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The trial court failed to make these findings, and therefore, the cost must be reversed.
Accordingly, we affirm Strickland’s convictions and sentences, reverse the portion of the sentence imposing the above cost, and remand to strike this cost from the sentence. The trial court may again impose this cost after complying with section 939.18(l)(b).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SALCINES and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abel Bert Crum v. State, 916 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…um’s judgment- and sentence, reverse the portion of the sentence imposing the $150 cost, and remand to strike this cost from the sentence. The trial court may again impose this cost after complying with section 939.18(1)(b). See Strickland v. State, 889 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. DAVIS and CANADY, JJ., Concur.…
-
Lambert v. State, 912 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…ld support or restitution he owes. The imposition of this cost must be stricken; the trial court did not make the requisite finding of Mr. Lambert’s ability to pay. See Stewart v. State, 906 So. 2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Strickland v. State, 889 So. 2d 219, 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Except for striking the $150 court improvement fund cost, we affirm Mr. Lambert’s conviction and sentence. WHATLEY and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur. . See art. I, §§ 34-4 and 54-1, Pasco County, Fla., Code of Ordinances (1994).…
-
Fernandez v. State, 906 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…nquiry. We therefore reverse that portion of Fernandez’s sentence imposing the $150 cost and remand to strike this cost from his sentence. The trial court may again impose this cost after complying with section 939.18(l)(b). See Strickland v. State, 889 So. 2d 219, 220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Patterson. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Patterson v. State, 796 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)