Frazier v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Frazier v. State

688 So. 2d 2, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1363, 1997 WL 68056

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2061

StatusPublished

This text of 688 So. 2d 2 (Frazier 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

Frazier v. State, 688 So. 2d 2, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1363, 1997 WL 68056 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, the sole issue directed to appellant’s conviction merits neither discussion nor reversal. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. However, we reverse the imposition of a cost identified only as “CLTF FS893” in the amount of $100.00, because neither the order imposing this cost nor the transcript of the sentencing hearing identifies to what it is attributable, or its statutory basis. To the extent that it represents an unidentified mandatory cost, on remand, the trial court may reimpose it, provided that it specifies the statute mandating imposition. Whitfield v. State, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2052, — So.2d - [1996 WL 511535] (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 11, 1996). To the extent that it represents a discretionary cost, it may be reimposed on remand, provided that appellant is afforded notice and an adequate opportunity to contest it. Anderson v. State, 658 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, the sole issue directed to appellant’s conviction merits neither discussion nor reversal. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. However, we reverse the imposition of a cost identified only as “CLTF FS893” in the amount of $100.00, because neither the order imposing this cost nor the transcript of the sentencing hearing identifies to what it is attributable, or its statutory basis. To the extent that it represents an unidentified mandatory cost, on remand, the trial court may reimpose it, provided that it specifies the statute mandating imposition. Whitfield v. State, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2052, — So.2d - [1996 WL 511535] (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 11, 1996). To the extent that it represents a discretionary cost, it may be reimposed on remand, provided that appellant is afforded notice and an adequate opportunity to contest it. Anderson v. State, 658 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

688 So. 2d 2, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1363, 1997 WL 68056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frazier-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack