Bright v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bright v. State

689 So. 2d 1285, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2738, 1997 WL 131562

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 25, 1997

DocketNo. 96-618

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 689 So. 2d 1285 (Bright 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

Bright v. State, 689 So. 2d 1285, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2738, 1997 WL 131562 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Thomas Melvin Bright’s convictions for possession of cocaine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia, and uttering a forged instrument.¹ We also affirm Bright’s sentences of two years of community control followed by three years’ probation for the uttering and possession of cocaine convictions, and one concurrent year of probation for the possession of marijuana and paraphernalia convictions.

We reverse the imposition of costs however, without prejudice to the reimposition of statutorily authorized costs after proper notice and hearing, provided that the written order recites citation to statutory authority for any costs imposed. Snyder v. State, 662 So.2d 1033, 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding that a fee for First Step is not statutorily authorized); Brown v. State, 681 So.2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that it is error to impose a fee without providing notice to the defendant of his right to contest the amount, and error to fail to include in the written order a citation of statutory authority for the fee).

MINER, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Thomas Melvin Bright’s convictions for possession of cocaine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia, and uttering a forged instrument.¹ We also affirm Bright’s sentences of two years of community control followed by three years’ probation for the uttering and possession of cocaine convictions, and one concurrent year of probation for the possession of marijuana and paraphernalia convictions.

We reverse the imposition of costs however, without prejudice to the reimposition of statutorily authorized costs after proper notice and hearing, provided that the written order recites citation to statutory authority for any costs imposed. Snyder v. State, 662 So.2d 1033, 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding that a fee for First Step is not statutorily authorized); Brown v. State, 681 So.2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that it is error to impose a fee without providing notice to the defendant of his right to contest the amount, and error to fail to include in the written order a citation of statutory authority for the fee).

MINER, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

689 So. 2d 1285, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2738, 1997 WL 131562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bright-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack