McElrath v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McElrath v. State

638 So. 2d 155, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5681, 1994 WL 248036

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 1994

DocketNo. 93-01551

StatusPublished

This text of 638 So. 2d 155 (McElrath 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

McElrath v. State, 638 So. 2d 155, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5681, 1994 WL 248036 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.

Richard McElrath challenges the trial court’s order imposing costs of prosecution under section 939.01(5), Florida Statutes (1993).

The record reflects that after the state presented witnesses that offered proof of the amount of the costs of prosecution, the trial judge heard the parties’ arguments and entered the order without considering the defendant’s financial resources. “[T]he state has the burden of proving the amount of these costs, and the trial court must consider the defendant’s financial resources before imposing them.” Sutton v. State, 635 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Tennie v. State, 593 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

Because this procedure was not followed in this case, we strike the order imposing costs. On remand, the state may seek to reimpose these costs. See Sutton.

PATTERSON and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.

Richard McElrath challenges the trial court’s order imposing costs of prosecution under section 939.01(5), Florida Statutes (1993).

The record reflects that after the state presented witnesses that offered proof of the amount of the costs of prosecution, the trial judge heard the parties’ arguments and entered the order without considering the defendant’s financial resources. “[T]he state has the burden of proving the amount of these costs, and the trial court must consider the defendant’s financial resources before imposing them.” Sutton v. State, 635 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Tennie v. State, 593 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

Because this procedure was not followed in this case, we strike the order imposing costs. On remand, the state may seek to reimpose these costs. See Sutton.

PATTERSON and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

638 So. 2d 155, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5681, 1994 WL 248036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcelrath-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack