Ismael v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ismael v. State

570 So. 2d 445, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9124, 1990 WL 191888

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 5, 1990·No. No. 89-0716·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As costs were assessed against appellant without benefit of notice and a hearing, we reverse the imposition of costs and remand based on Mays v. State, 519 So.2d 618 (Fla.1988). We note that an identical argument was raised by the state in Beasley v. State, 565 So.2d 721 (Fla. 4th DCA), review granted, No. 76,102 (Fla. June 7, 1990), wherein we certified the question of whether the imposition of costs against an indigent is different from the collection of those costs, making the question of ability to pay premature until attempt is made to collect such costs.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

As costs were assessed against appellant without benefit of notice and a hearing, we reverse the imposition of costs and remand based on Mays v. State, 519 So.2d 618 (Fla.1988). We note that an identical argument was raised by the state in Beasley v. State, 565 So.2d 721 (Fla. 4th DCA), review granted, No. 76,102 (Fla. June 7, 1990), wherein we certified the question of whether the imposition of costs against an indigent is different from the collection of those costs, making the question of ability to pay premature until attempt is made to collect such costs.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Ismael v. State, 570 So. 2d 445, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9124, 1990 WL 191888 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

570 So. 2d 445 (Ismael v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related