Delifus v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Delifus v. State

507 So. 2d 753, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1308, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8344

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 21, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1625

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 507 So. 2d 753 (Delifus 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

Delifus v. State, 507 So. 2d 753, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1308, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8344 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

UPCHURCH, Chief Judge.

We affirm the judgment of guilt and the order withholding imposition of sentence and placing defendant on probation. However, we reverse the condition of probation which imposed costs.

The state must provide adequate notice of assessment of costs to a defendant with full opportunity to object to the costs and any enforcement may occur only after a judicial finding that an indigent defendant has the ability to pay. See Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984); Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Fletcher v. State, 491 So.2d 354 (Fla. 5th [754]*754DCA 1986); Brooks v. State, 490 So.2d 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Since the record does not show that the defendant was given notice and opportunity to object, the imposition of the costs was improper. Accordingly, the costs should be stricken without prejudice to the state to tax them in accordance with the procedure outlined in Jenkins.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

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

UPCHURCH, Chief Judge.

We affirm the judgment of guilt and the order withholding imposition of sentence and placing defendant on probation. However, we reverse the condition of probation which imposed costs.

The state must provide adequate notice of assessment of costs to a defendant with full opportunity to object to the costs and any enforcement may occur only after a judicial finding that an indigent defendant has the ability to pay. See Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984); Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Fletcher v. State, 491 So.2d 354 (Fla. 5th [754]*754DCA 1986); Brooks v. State, 490 So.2d 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Since the record does not show that the defendant was given notice and opportunity to object, the imposition of the costs was improper. Accordingly, the costs should be stricken without prejudice to the state to tax them in accordance with the procedure outlined in Jenkins.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 So. 2d 753, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1308, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delifus-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack