Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Curry v. State

Curry v. State

696 So. 2d 774, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12323, 1996 WL 670450
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Curry v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 656 So. 2d 521 →
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 20, 1996·No. No. 95-01187·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Curry challenges the denial of his motion to suppress and the costs imposed at sentencing. We find that Curry’s motion to suppress was correctly denied and affirm his adjudication and sentence without discussion, but we strike one court cost.

A cost of $2 was assessed pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993). This cost is discretionary, and since the trial court failed to give Curry notice of this cost, this cost must be stricken. See Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

[775]*775Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence, but we strike one court cost.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

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

Curry v. State, 696 So. 2d 774, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12323, 1996 WL 670450 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

696 So. 2d 774 (Curry v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Reyes v. State
655 So. 2d 111 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)