Aud v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Aud v. State

657 So. 2d 52, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7098, 1995 WL 385765

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 30, 1995

DocketNo. 94-02263

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 657 So. 2d 52 (Aud 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

Aud v. State, 657 So. 2d 52, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7098, 1995 WL 385765 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, James L. Aud, II, challenges certain costs imposed upon him as part of his sentence after he pled no contest to the charge of possession of cocaine. Appellant challenges a variety of costs which amounted to a total of $580. We find error, however, only in regard to two items of these costs. The court imposed a $300 drug fee and $25 in administrative court costs. These two items of costs were improperly imposed because the trial court did not set forth the statutory authority supporting these costs. Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

We, therefore, remand with instructions to strike these costs. The trial court may of course reimpose these costs if the proper statutory authority under which each cost is imposed is provided to appellant. See Reyes, [53]*53655 So.2d at 112. We affirm the trial court in all other respects.

Remanded with instructions.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, James L. Aud, II, challenges certain costs imposed upon him as part of his sentence after he pled no contest to the charge of possession of cocaine. Appellant challenges a variety of costs which amounted to a total of $580. We find error, however, only in regard to two items of these costs. The court imposed a $300 drug fee and $25 in administrative court costs. These two items of costs were improperly imposed because the trial court did not set forth the statutory authority supporting these costs. Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

We, therefore, remand with instructions to strike these costs. The trial court may of course reimpose these costs if the proper statutory authority under which each cost is imposed is provided to appellant. See Reyes, [53]*53655 So.2d at 112. We affirm the trial court in all other respects.

Remanded with instructions.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

657 So. 2d 52, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7098, 1995 WL 385765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aud-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack