Boyd v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Boyd v. State

518 So. 2d 462, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 218, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 112, 1988 WL 1473

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 15, 1988

DocketNo. 86-1656

StatusPublished

This text of 518 So. 2d 462 (Boyd 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

Boyd v. State, 518 So. 2d 462, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 218, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 112, 1988 WL 1473 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Judge.

The appellant, John William Boyd, appeals from his conviction for robbery and grand theft and the resultant sentence. Our review of the record discloses no error in the trial court’s orders denying Boyd’s motions for severance from the trial of his codefendant, Hart, and acquittal.

The final points raised by Boyd, the imposition of restitution, fines, and costs, are meritorious. The disposition of the restitution and supplemental fine issues is governed by this court’s opinion in Hart v. State, 516 So.2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The trial court was without jurisdiction to determine the amount of restitution and the magnitude of the supplemental fine after the filing of Boyd’s notice of appeal. Hart. Finally, without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, contrary to Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984), the trial court imposed costs in the amount of $12 upon Boyd in the written judgment. The costs are stricken without prejudice to the state to seek reassessment. Sescon v. State, 506 So.2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

This matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

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

FRANK, Judge.

The appellant, John William Boyd, appeals from his conviction for robbery and grand theft and the resultant sentence. Our review of the record discloses no error in the trial court’s orders denying Boyd’s motions for severance from the trial of his codefendant, Hart, and acquittal.

The final points raised by Boyd, the imposition of restitution, fines, and costs, are meritorious. The disposition of the restitution and supplemental fine issues is governed by this court’s opinion in Hart v. State, 516 So.2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The trial court was without jurisdiction to determine the amount of restitution and the magnitude of the supplemental fine after the filing of Boyd’s notice of appeal. Hart. Finally, without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, contrary to Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984), the trial court imposed costs in the amount of $12 upon Boyd in the written judgment. The costs are stricken without prejudice to the state to seek reassessment. Sescon v. State, 506 So.2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

This matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 So. 2d 462, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 218, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 112, 1988 WL 1473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack