Foust v. State

478 So. 2d 111, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2505
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 8, 1985
Docket85-741
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 478 So. 2d 111 (Foust 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
Foust v. State, 478 So. 2d 111, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2505 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

478 So.2d 111 (1985)

Willie James FOUST, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 85-741.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 8, 1985.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Paul C. Helm, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William E. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

*112 CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant, Willie James Foust, appeals his judgment and sentence for sexual battery with slight force. Upon review of the record on appeal, we find that the evidence was sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction.

Appellant was ordered to pay $825.00 in attorney's fees during any period of work release, $10.00 to the Crimes Compensation Fund, and $2.00 in court costs. Appellant argues that the portion of the trial court's order assessing these costs is improper since he is indigent.

Assessment of attorney's fees and costs is permissible against an indigent defendant only after the defendant has been given adequate notice and an opportunity to object to the assessment. Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla. 1984); Harris v. State, 452 So.2d 1041 (Fla.2d DCA 1984); Murph v. State, 445 So.2d 1112 (Fla.2d DCA 1984).

There is nothing in the record which indicates that appellant was given notice and an opportunity to object to the assessment of costs and attorney's fees under sections 27.56(7) and 960.20, Florida Statutes (1981).

Accordingly, the assessment should be stricken without prejudice to the state to tax these costs against appellant after proper notice and hearing.

RYDER, C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

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

Related

Canale v. State
509 So. 2d 1245 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Tyner v. State
508 So. 2d 565 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Rago v. State
498 So. 2d 584 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Taylor v. State
491 So. 2d 1150 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
478 So. 2d 111, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foust-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.