Andrews v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Andrews v. State

505 So. 2d 1095, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 642, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7005

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 27, 1987

DocketNo. 85-2969

StatusPublished

This text of 505 So. 2d 1095 (Andrews 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

Andrews v. State, 505 So. 2d 1095, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 642, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7005 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, William Andrews, appeals the trial court order that required him to pay court costs of $220 as a condition of probation. He argues only that the trial court improperly imposed costs because, although he was indigent, he was neither given adequate notice that costs might be imposed nor an opportunity to be heard. He also contends that, in any event, the [1096]*1096court should have imposed community control in lieu of costs.

We have previously addressed those issues in State v. Castro, 491 So.2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Moreover, at the change of plea hearing, appellant’s counsel stated: “Again, I would incorporate, by reference, the motion as to the constitutionality of 27.3455, and reserve the right to appeal the Court’s ruling thereon.” It is clear, therefore, that appellant did have notice as to the imposition of costs. Appellant reserved the right to appeal only as to the constitutional issue which has not been raised in this appeal.

Affirmed.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, William Andrews, appeals the trial court order that required him to pay court costs of $220 as a condition of probation. He argues only that the trial court improperly imposed costs because, although he was indigent, he was neither given adequate notice that costs might be imposed nor an opportunity to be heard. He also contends that, in any event, the [1096]*1096court should have imposed community control in lieu of costs.

We have previously addressed those issues in State v. Castro, 491 So.2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Moreover, at the change of plea hearing, appellant’s counsel stated: “Again, I would incorporate, by reference, the motion as to the constitutionality of 27.3455, and reserve the right to appeal the Court’s ruling thereon.” It is clear, therefore, that appellant did have notice as to the imposition of costs. Appellant reserved the right to appeal only as to the constitutional issue which has not been raised in this appeal.

Affirmed.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 So. 2d 1095, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 642, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack