Lazzell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lazzell v. State

530 So. 2d 1099, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2172, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4099, 1988 WL 94677

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 16, 1988

DocketNo. 87-104

StatusPublished

This text of 530 So. 2d 1099 (Lazzell 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

Lazzell v. State, 530 So. 2d 1099, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2172, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4099, 1988 WL 94677 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pled nolo contendere to armed robbery. The judgment imposed various types of court costs and appellant complains of a lack of notice and hearing as to costs. Appellant had been declared indigent for purposes of costs.

The state has supplemented the record with a notice of the sentencing hearing which includes a notification that court costs might be imposed. However, we find that, although appellant was on notice as to costs, costs were not orally imposed at the sentencing hearing, or at the prior plea hearing. Therefore, such costs were improperly included on the written judgment.

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

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

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pled nolo contendere to armed robbery. The judgment imposed various types of court costs and appellant complains of a lack of notice and hearing as to costs. Appellant had been declared indigent for purposes of costs.

The state has supplemented the record with a notice of the sentencing hearing which includes a notification that court costs might be imposed. However, we find that, although appellant was on notice as to costs, costs were not orally imposed at the sentencing hearing, or at the prior plea hearing. Therefore, such costs were improperly included on the written judgment.

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

530 So. 2d 1099, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2172, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4099, 1988 WL 94677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lazzell-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.