Major v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Major v. State

874 So. 2d 736, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8381, 2004 WL 1335761

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 2004

DocketNo. 4D03-1906

StatusPublished

This text of 874 So. 2d 736 (Major 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

Major v. State, 874 So. 2d 736, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8381, 2004 WL 1335761 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm all issues raised by appellant, but strike the imposition of $50 costs of prosecution and remand for further proceedings.

With regard to the $50 assessed for costs of prosecution and investigation this court has held that it is fundamental error to impose investigative costs on a defendant where the state did not request the costs and there is no documentation to support the award. See Abbott v. State, 705 So.2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Thus, because this record lacks either a request by the state or any supporting documentation, we strike these costs from appellant’s sentence and remand for further proceedings. On remand, these costs may be reimposed provided the state can produce proper documentation. See Hill v. State, 845 So.2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Pagliuca v. State, 860 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED

GUNTHER, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm all issues raised by appellant, but strike the imposition of $50 costs of prosecution and remand for further proceedings.

With regard to the $50 assessed for costs of prosecution and investigation this court has held that it is fundamental error to impose investigative costs on a defendant where the state did not request the costs and there is no documentation to support the award. See Abbott v. State, 705 So.2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Thus, because this record lacks either a request by the state or any supporting documentation, we strike these costs from appellant’s sentence and remand for further proceedings. On remand, these costs may be reimposed provided the state can produce proper documentation. See Hill v. State, 845 So.2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Pagliuca v. State, 860 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED

GUNTHER, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

874 So. 2d 736, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8381, 2004 WL 1335761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/major-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack