McDonald v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McDonald v. State

485 So. 2d 20, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 640

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 1986

DocketNo. 85-798

StatusPublished

This text of 485 So. 2d 20 (McDonald 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

McDonald v. State, 485 So. 2d 20, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 640 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

LETTS, Judge.

The rehearing motion is granted and the opinion of January 29, 1986, is withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted:

The sole issue meriting discussion is whether the trial court erred in making an assessment pursuant to section 960.17, Florida Statutes (1983). Since the appellant, an indigent, was not given adequate notice and a full opportunity to object to the assessment as required by Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984), the imposition of costs was improper. The imposition of the assessment is reversed, without prejudice and the cause is remanded for further proceedings regarding the assessment of costs, consistent with this opinion.

We find no merit in the other points on appeal.

DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

LETTS, Judge.

The rehearing motion is granted and the opinion of January 29, 1986, is withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted:

The sole issue meriting discussion is whether the trial court erred in making an assessment pursuant to section 960.17, Florida Statutes (1983). Since the appellant, an indigent, was not given adequate notice and a full opportunity to object to the assessment as required by Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984), the imposition of costs was improper. The imposition of the assessment is reversed, without prejudice and the cause is remanded for further proceedings regarding the assessment of costs, consistent with this opinion.

We find no merit in the other points on appeal.

DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

485 So. 2d 20, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack