Lopez v. State

655 So. 2d 122, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2547, 1995 WL 118400
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lopez v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 688 So. 2d 948
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 15, 1995·No. No. 93-00169·Published

Opinion

WHATLEY, Judge.

The appellant, Daniel Lopez, challenges his judgment and sentence for first-degree arson, burglary of a dwelling, third-degree grand theft, criminal mischief, and attempted second-degree arson. He raises six issues on appeal; however, we find merit only in his contention that it was error to impose costs for the Hillsborough County Court Improvement Fund. We, therefore, reverse on that point only.

In Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), this court recently held that there was no legal basis for the assessment of costs payable to the Hillsborough County Court Improvement Fund because such assessment was authorized by county ordinance, not state statute. Therefore, that portion of the trial court’s order directing Lopez to pay $15 to the Hillsborough County Court Improvement Fund was improper.

Accordingly, the Hillsborough County Court Improvement Fund cost is stricken. [123]*123The conviction and sentence of Lopez are, otherwise, affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.

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

Lopez v. State, 655 So. 2d 122, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2547, 1995 WL 118400 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

655 So. 2d 122 (Lopez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Reyes v. State
655 So. 2d 111 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)