Austin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Austin v. State

567 So. 2d 1063, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7799, 1990 WL 152119

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Austin v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 527 So. 2d 867 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 12, 1990·No. No. 89-03148·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no reversible error in the record of appellant’s trial for robbery with a firearm, and so affirm the conviction and sentence. We do agree that court costs and attorneys’ fees were imposed without adequate notice or hearing, and strike that provision without prejudice to the state to seek reimposition after adequate notice. See Wood v. State, 544 So.2d 1004 (Fla.1989).

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

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no reversible error in the record of appellant’s trial for robbery with a firearm, and so affirm the conviction and sentence. We do agree that court costs and attorneys’ fees were imposed without adequate notice or hearing, and strike that provision without prejudice to the state to seek reimposition after adequate notice. See Wood v. State, 544 So.2d 1004 (Fla.1989).

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

Austin v. State, 567 So. 2d 1063, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7799, 1990 WL 152119 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

567 So. 2d 1063 (Austin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related