KEVIN TAYLOR
v.
STATE
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.
Investigative costs may not be imposed without the State's request, and a judgment must specify that the defendant was tried by jury and found guilty.
[1] Investigative costs may not be imposed in a judgment unless the State has requested their imposition at trial or on remand.
[2] A judgment must clearly reflect that the defendant was tried by jury and found guilty on the conviction charges.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKevin Taylor was convicted of attempted human trafficking for child sexual exploitation and unlawful use of a two-way communication device. The trial …
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 Cross-Examination Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Kevin Taylor appeals his judgment and sentence for attempted human trafficking for 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
Authorities Cited
- 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)