ABEL BERT CRUM, 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 a trial court must make specific findings regarding a defendant's ability to pay a discretionary cost before imposing it. The trial court failed to make these findings.
Abel Crum was convicted of possession of cocaine and sentenced. As part of the sentence, the trial court imposed a $150 cost for the court improvement…
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.
SCHEB, JOHN M., Senior Judge.
Abel Crum appeals from his judgment and sentence for possession of cocaine. He argues that the trial court improperly imposed a $150 cost for the court improvement fund under section 939.18, Florida Statutes (2003), as part of his sentence without considering his financial ability to pay. We agree.
“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 we reverse the imposition of the cost.
Accordingly, we affirm Crum’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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lennon v. Simone Lennon, 264 So. 3d 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.285(k), and the trial court shall determine their respective financial situations and recalculate their support obligations in keeping with the record and related findings and the child support guidelines, see Long v. Long, 916 So. 2d 823, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The former husband is entitled to credit for any previous overpayments. See, e.g., Sierra v. Ellison, 677 So. 2d 406, 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). If the court again chooses to award retroactive support, the amount of any s…
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Moneyham, 931 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ation). On remand, the ALJ is ordered “to determine the parties’ current financial situation and recalculate their child support obligations on a worksheet using current financial information and applying the child support guidelines.” Long v. Long, 916 So. 2d 823, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. KAHN, C.J.; ERVIN, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.…
-
Sullavin McKENZIE v. Dep't OF Revenue, 981 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…ubstantial evidence to support the trial court’s order requiring appellant to pay child support. The State concedes that the child support guidelines worksheet is not contained in the record and, accordingly, reversal is warranted. See Long v. Long, 916 So. 2d 823, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that it was error for the trial court to determine the issue of child support without a child support guidelines [*1290] worksheet). We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing, which shall include a determinati…
Authorities Cited
- Patterson v. State, 796 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Strickland v. State, 889 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)