Hotalen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hotalen v. State

530 So. 2d 491, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2076, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3896, 1988 WL 90406

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 2, 1988

DocketNo. 87-339

StatusPublished

This text of 530 So. 2d 491 (Hotalen 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

Hotalen v. State, 530 So. 2d 491, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2076, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3896, 1988 WL 90406 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

HALL, Judge.

The appellant pled nolo contendere to two counts of grand theft and was adjudicated guilty of the offenses. The trial court found the appellant to be indigent for purposes of court costs. However, without a hearing or prior notice the court imposed twenty dollars pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1985); three dollars pursuant to section 943.25(4); two dollars pursuant to section 943.25(8), and two hundred dollars pursuant to section 27.3455, for each conviction, totaling four hundred fifty dollars in court costs. We find that the trial court erred in imposing the costs. See Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984).

Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s judgment and sentence but strike the court costs.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.

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

HALL, Judge.

The appellant pled nolo contendere to two counts of grand theft and was adjudicated guilty of the offenses. The trial court found the appellant to be indigent for purposes of court costs. However, without a hearing or prior notice the court imposed twenty dollars pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1985); three dollars pursuant to section 943.25(4); two dollars pursuant to section 943.25(8), and two hundred dollars pursuant to section 27.3455, for each conviction, totaling four hundred fifty dollars in court costs. We find that the trial court erred in imposing the costs. See Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984).

Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s judgment and sentence but strike the court costs.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

530 So. 2d 491, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2076, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3896, 1988 WL 90406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hotalen-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack