Bristow v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bristow v. State

685 So. 2d 855, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12636, 1995 WL 723533

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 8, 1995

DocketNo. 94-00696

StatusPublished

This text of 685 So. 2d 855 (Bristow 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

Bristow v. State, 685 So. 2d 855, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12636, 1995 WL 723533 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Counsel for Richard Bristow filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising five points. We find merit only in the argument that certain cost items were improperly imposed.

Bristow argues and the state agrees there was no notice or opportunity to object to the $2.00 cost imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1991). Additionally, the $33.00 cosVfine was imposed without statutory authority. We, therefore, strike these costs. However, on remand both cost items may be reimposed after notice and an opportunity to object and with citation to the appropriate statutory authority-

In all other respects, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

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