RONALD JAMES RICHARDS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court errs in imposing investigative costs in a violation of probation sentence without a request from the State or evidence from the investigating agency.
[1] Investigative costs may not be imposed in a violation of probation sentence absent a request from the State and evidence from the investigating agency.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRonald Richards was sentenced for a violation of probation. The trial court imposed costs of investigation without any request from the State or evide…
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 Probation Violation Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
RONALD JAMES RICHARDS,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-2704
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed December 7, 2018
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Leah Case, Judge.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Matthew Funderburk, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Ronald Richards appeals his violation of probation sentence arguing that the trial court erred in imposing costs of investigation in the absence of a request from the State or any evidence from the investigating agency. We agree. See Taylor v. State, 242 So. 3d 1203–1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018); Foulkes v. State, 221 So. 3d 789, 790 (Fla. 5th DCA
2 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 investigative costs. See McCarthy v. State, 893 So. 2d 689, 690 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). REVERSED and REMANDED.
TORPY, LAMBERT, and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Cintron v. Martinez, 893 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Taylor v. State, 242 So. 3d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Foulkes v. State, 221 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Martin v. State, 221 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)