Brown v. State

561 So. 2d 17, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3221, 1990 WL 60894
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brown v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1477
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 9, 1990·No. No. 87-03180·Published

Opinion

RYDER, Judge.

Darren Brown appeals the denial of his motion to suppress cocaine and the imposition of court costs. We affirm the denial of his motion to suppress, but reverse the imposition of court costs. The trial court did not affirmatively impose costs during the sentencing hearing and was not entitled to do so thereafter in a written order. In order to impose costs, a defendant must have notice and an opportunity to be heard. Wood v. State, 544 So.2d 1004 (Fla.1989); Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984); Joseph v. State, 556 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In this case, the trial court’s comments during the sentencing hearing did not serve as notice that it was imposing costs upon Brown, but merely left the issue open for further determination. Additionally, there was no determination made that Brown had the ability to pay the costs. Although, we affirm the sentence imposed, we reverse the cost provision of Brown’s judgment.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.

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

Brown v. State, 561 So. 2d 17, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3221, 1990 WL 60894 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

561 So. 2d 17 (Brown v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jenkins v. State
444 So. 2d 947 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1984)
Wood v. State
544 So. 2d 1004 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1989)
Joseph v. State
556 So. 2d 1233 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)