Ferrell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ferrell v. State

437 So. 2d 782, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21689

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 16, 1983

DocketNo. 82-1697

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 437 So. 2d 782 (Ferrell 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

Ferrell v. State, 437 So. 2d 782, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21689 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James Dale Ferrell appeals his judgment and sentence for second degree murder and grand theft. He raises two arguments. While we do not find any merit in his first contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, we agree with his second assertion that, since he had been previously adjudicated insolvent, the trial court erred in imposing court costs of $10, $2 and $1 against him under sections 960.20 and 943.-25(4) and (8), Florida Statutes (1981), respectively, and in imposing additional costs of $67. See Brown v. State, 427 So.2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (question certified).

In reviewing the judgment and sentence, we note that the court also erred to the extent that it directed that appellant pay as conditions of parole a $2,662 lien for court-appointed counsel, a fine of $952.38, and a surcharge of $47.62 under section 960.25. The Parole and Probation Commission, not the courts, has the sole authority to establish conditions of parole. § 947.-13(l)(b); Brown; Alexander v. State, 425 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

Accordingly, we remand with directions that the court strike all costs and provide that the lien, fine and surcharge are to be paid, but not as conditions of parole. In all other respects we affirm.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with directions.

OTT, C.J., and HOBSON and SCHEB, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

James Dale Ferrell appeals his judgment and sentence for second degree murder and grand theft. He raises two arguments. While we do not find any merit in his first contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, we agree with his second assertion that, since he had been previously adjudicated insolvent, the trial court erred in imposing court costs of $10, $2 and $1 against him under sections 960.20 and 943.-25(4) and (8), Florida Statutes (1981), respectively, and in imposing additional costs of $67. See Brown v. State, 427 So.2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (question certified).

In reviewing the judgment and sentence, we note that the court also erred to the extent that it directed that appellant pay as conditions of parole a $2,662 lien for court-appointed counsel, a fine of $952.38, and a surcharge of $47.62 under section 960.25. The Parole and Probation Commission, not the courts, has the sole authority to establish conditions of parole. § 947.-13(l)(b); Brown; Alexander v. State, 425 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

Accordingly, we remand with directions that the court strike all costs and provide that the lien, fine and surcharge are to be paid, but not as conditions of parole. In all other respects we affirm.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with directions.

OTT, C.J., and HOBSON and SCHEB, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

437 So. 2d 782, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferrell-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack