KEVIN TAYLOR, 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 costs of investigation were improperly imposed without a request, and a scrivener's error in the judgment must be corrected. The conviction was otherwise affirmed.
Kevin Taylor was convicted of attempted human trafficking and unlawful use of a two-way communication device. He appealed his judgment and sentence, r…
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 Investigative Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
Kevin Taylor appeals his judgment and sentence for attempted human trafficking *1204for the purpose of exploiting a child through commercial sexual activity and unlawful use of a two-way communication device in furtherance of the commission of a felony. Taylor raises the following arguments: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for unlawful use of a two-way communication device in furtherance of a felony; 2) the trial court erred by limiting the cross-examination of a witness; 3) the State made improper comments during closing argument that warrant reversal and a new trial; 4) the trial court erred in imposing costs of investigation; and 5) the judgment failed to state that Taylor was tried by a jury.
We agree that the trial court erred in imposing costs of investigation, as the State did not request them. See Foulkes v. State, 221 So.3d 789, 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). We therefore remand for the trial court to strike these costs from the judgment, noting that the State should be given the opportunity to request the imposition of costs. See McCarthy v. State, 893 So.2d 689, 690 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
We also remand for the trial court to correct the scrivener's error in the judgment, which failed to indicate that Taylor was tried by a jury and found guilty. See Harvey v. State, 146 So.3d 66, 66 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). In all other respects, we affirm without further discussion.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, REMANDED.
SAWAYA, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carrion v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…t those errors that are the result of a judicial determination or error" correct written judgment that erroneously indicated the defendant entered a no contest plea where the record revealed he was convicted after a jury trial); Taylor v. State, 242 So. 3d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (remanding to the trial court to correct a scrivener's error in the judgment which failed to indicate the defendant was tried by a jury and found guilty); Bartee v. State, 741 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (affirm…
-
Richards v. State, 258 So. 3d 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
-
Gonzalez v. State, 264 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…t and sentence but remanding with directions that an error in the judgment be corrected where the error was "not the result of a judicial determination, but rather a scrivener's error in the preparation of the written document"); Taylor v. State, 242 So. 3d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) ("We also remand for the trial court to correct the scrivener's error in the judgment, which failed to indicate that Taylor was tried by a jury and found guilty."). We affirm Gonzalez's jury convictions and concurrent l…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Cintron v. Martinez, 893 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Harvey v. State, 146 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
- Foulkes v. State, 221 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Martin v. State, 221 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)