Kevin Taylor v. State
This text of 242 So. 3d 1203 (Kevin Taylor 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.
Opinion
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
KEVIN TAYLOR,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D16-4252
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed April 13, 2018
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Debra S. Nelson, Judge.
Terrence E. Kehoe, of Law Office of Terrence E. Kehoe, Orlando, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent-Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Kevin Taylor appeals his judgment and sentence for attempted human trafficking
for the purpose of exploiting a child through commercial sexual activity and unlawful use
of a two-way communication device in furtherance of the commission of a felony. Taylor
raises the following arguments: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction
for unlawful use of a two-way communication device in furtherance of a felony; 2) the trial court erred by limiting the cross-examination of a witness; 3) the State made improper
comments during closing argument that warrant reversal and a new trial; 4) the trial court
erred in imposing costs of investigation; and 5) the judgment failed to state that Taylor
was tried by a jury.
We agree that the trial court erred in imposing costs of investigation, as the State
did not request them. See Foulkes v. State, 221 So. 3d 789, 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).
We therefore remand for the trial court to strike these costs from the judgment, noting that
the State should be given the opportunity to request the imposition of costs. See
McCarthy v. State, 893 So. 2d 689, 690 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
We also remand for the trial court to correct the scrivener’s error in the judgment,
which failed to indicate that Taylor was tried by a jury and found guilty. See Harvey v.
State, 146 So. 3d 66, 66 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). In all other respects, we affirm without
further discussion.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, REMANDED.
SAWAYA, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
242 So. 3d 1203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kevin-taylor-v-state-fladistctapp-2018.