Larsen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Larsen v. State

543 So. 2d 359, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1174, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2706, 1989 WL 49623

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 12, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2813

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 543 So. 2d 359 (Larsen 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

Larsen v. State, 543 So. 2d 359, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1174, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2706, 1989 WL 49623 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

JOANOS, Judge.

Larsen appeals the denial, after hearing, of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which motion alleged numerous grounds for relief. We affirm the denial of the motion as to each of those grounds, and find that only one. merits brief discussion, namely, Larsen’s allegation that costs were imposed upon him pursuant to sections 960.20 and 943.25(4), Florida Statutes, without notice or opportunity to object. The trial court ruled that this issue was not properly raised in a 3.850 motion in that it could and should have been raised on direct appeal. We agree and affirm.

Pursuant to Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, we certify that the decision herein expressly and directly conflicts with decisions of another district court of appeal on the same question of law. See Gordon v. State, 530 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) and Kirshner v. State, 533 So.2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).

THOMPSON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

JOANOS, Judge.

Larsen appeals the denial, after hearing, of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which motion alleged numerous grounds for relief. We affirm the denial of the motion as to each of those grounds, and find that only one. merits brief discussion, namely, Larsen’s allegation that costs were imposed upon him pursuant to sections 960.20 and 943.25(4), Florida Statutes, without notice or opportunity to object. The trial court ruled that this issue was not properly raised in a 3.850 motion in that it could and should have been raised on direct appeal. We agree and affirm.

Pursuant to Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, we certify that the decision herein expressly and directly conflicts with decisions of another district court of appeal on the same question of law. See Gordon v. State, 530 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) and Kirshner v. State, 533 So.2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).

THOMPSON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

543 So. 2d 359, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1174, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2706, 1989 WL 49623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larsen-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack