Acankta v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Acankta v. State

622 So. 2d 170, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8437, 1993 WL 309156

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 11, 1993

DocketNo. 92-04216

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 622 So. 2d 170 (Acankta v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acankta v. State, 622 So. 2d 170, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8437, 1993 WL 309156 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant complains about $3.00 in costs imposed against her, pursuant to 943.25(4), Florida Statutes (1991), on the ground that that statute does not authorize such costs. Bauman v. State, 600 So.2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). It is true that subsection (4) does not authorize costs, but subsection (3) of that statute does. The effect of subsection (3) was not raised in Bauman. We, therefore, decline to set aside the cost imposition. However, we write to point out that the printed form judgment refers to the wrong subsection and should be corrected for future use.

Additionally, the trial court orally imposed a public defender fee of $300.00 but did not include it in the judgment and sentence. The trial court must correct the judgment and sentence to conform to the oral pronouncement. Otherwise, the judgments and sentences are affirmed. .

FRANK, C.J., and RYDER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant complains about $3.00 in costs imposed against her, pursuant to 943.25(4), Florida Statutes (1991), on the ground that that statute does not authorize such costs. Bauman v. State, 600 So.2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). It is true that subsection (4) does not authorize costs, but subsection (3) of that statute does. The effect of subsection (3) was not raised in Bauman. We, therefore, decline to set aside the cost imposition. However, we write to point out that the printed form judgment refers to the wrong subsection and should be corrected for future use.

Additionally, the trial court orally imposed a public defender fee of $300.00 but did not include it in the judgment and sentence. The trial court must correct the judgment and sentence to conform to the oral pronouncement. Otherwise, the judgments and sentences are affirmed. .

FRANK, C.J., and RYDER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

622 So. 2d 170, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8437, 1993 WL 309156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acankta-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack