McCann v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McCann v. State

249 So. 3d 792

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 27, 2018

DocketCase No. 2D16-812

StatusPublished

This text of 249 So. 3d 792 (McCann 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

McCann v. State, 249 So. 3d 792 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

BLACK, Judge.

*793Mallory McCann challenges her fifteen-year sentence for armed robbery. We affirm the sentence without comment. However, we agree with McCann's contention that the trial court erred in imposing a $65 assessment pursuant to section 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2015), because the order assessing costs and fees fails to indicate the applicable county ordinance.¹ See Swift v. State, 53 So.3d 394, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (citing Ayoub v. State, 901 So.2d 311, 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ); Carter v. State, 173 So.3d 1048, 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). We affirm the assessment but remand for the trial court to enter an amended order assessing costs and fees reflecting the applicable county ordinance. See Swift, 53 So.3d at 395.

Affirmed; remanded with directions.

ATKINSON, J., and CASE, JAMES R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.

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

BLACK, Judge.

*793Mallory McCann challenges her fifteen-year sentence for armed robbery. We affirm the sentence without comment. However, we agree with McCann's contention that the trial court erred in imposing a $65 assessment pursuant to section 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2015), because the order assessing costs and fees fails to indicate the applicable county ordinance.¹ See Swift v. State, 53 So.3d 394, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (citing Ayoub v. State, 901 So.2d 311, 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ); Carter v. State, 173 So.3d 1048, 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). We affirm the assessment but remand for the trial court to enter an amended order assessing costs and fees reflecting the applicable county ordinance. See Swift, 53 So.3d at 395.

Affirmed; remanded with directions.

ATKINSON, J., and CASE, JAMES R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 So. 3d 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccann-v-state-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack