Harvey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harvey v. State

519 So. 2d 80, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 295, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 416, 1988 WL 6400

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 29, 1988

DocketNo. BP-477

StatusPublished

This text of 519 So. 2d 80 (Harvey 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

Harvey v. State, 519 So. 2d 80, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 295, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 416, 1988 WL 6400 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

JOANOS, Judge.

Raylawda C. Harvey appeals a final judgment and sentence for a conviction of dealing in stolen property and petit theft. After careful consideration of the record, we affirm the judgment. However, we reverse as to two matters regarding the sentence.

The state has conceded that the written sentence of 11 months, 29 days is incorrect and should reflect the court’s oral, non-state prison sentence of 7 months, 29 days. The sentencing documents need to be corrected, therefore, we remand on this point for correction.

Appellant also argued correctly that no mention was made at sentencing of the court costs ultimately assessed. Appellant was subsequently adjudicated insolvent for it was determined she was unable to hire her own attorney or pay any costs for this appeal. Appellant should have received notice and an opportunity to object to the costs assessed. See Bellinger v. State, 514 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), and cases cited therein. Therefore, we reverse and remand this portion of the sentence so that appellant can be given notice and an oppor[81]*81tunity to be heard prior to the imposition of court costs. In all other respects, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.

SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

JOANOS, Judge.

Raylawda C. Harvey appeals a final judgment and sentence for a conviction of dealing in stolen property and petit theft. After careful consideration of the record, we affirm the judgment. However, we reverse as to two matters regarding the sentence.

The state has conceded that the written sentence of 11 months, 29 days is incorrect and should reflect the court’s oral, non-state prison sentence of 7 months, 29 days. The sentencing documents need to be corrected, therefore, we remand on this point for correction.

Appellant also argued correctly that no mention was made at sentencing of the court costs ultimately assessed. Appellant was subsequently adjudicated insolvent for it was determined she was unable to hire her own attorney or pay any costs for this appeal. Appellant should have received notice and an opportunity to object to the costs assessed. See Bellinger v. State, 514 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), and cases cited therein. Therefore, we reverse and remand this portion of the sentence so that appellant can be given notice and an oppor[81]*81tunity to be heard prior to the imposition of court costs. In all other respects, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.

SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

519 So. 2d 80, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 295, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 416, 1988 WL 6400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack