McKenzie v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McKenzie v. State

164 So. 3d 127, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6933, 2015 WL 2143134

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 8, 2015

DocketNo. 1D15-0152

StatusPublished

This text of 164 So. 3d 127 (McKenzie 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

McKenzie v. State, 164 So. 3d 127, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6933, 2015 WL 2143134 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Averitt McKenzie presents a timely claim that he was denied the effective' assistance of counsel on direct appeal. Among his claims, we find merit only in his assertion that appellate counsel was ineffective for failure to challenge the assessment of a $100 “sheriffs office investigative cost” where that cost was not requested, documented, subjected to argument concerning the amount, or orally pronounced. See, e.g., Pruitt v. State, 98 So.3d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), receded from on other grounds by Spear v. State, [128]*128109 So.3d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (en banc). On this basis, we grant the petition, and concluding that a new appeal concerning this limited issue is unnecessary, we remand with directions to strike this assessment.

PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

LEWIS, C.J., WETHERELL and RAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Averitt McKenzie presents a timely claim that he was denied the effective' assistance of counsel on direct appeal. Among his claims, we find merit only in his assertion that appellate counsel was ineffective for failure to challenge the assessment of a $100 “sheriffs office investigative cost” where that cost was not requested, documented, subjected to argument concerning the amount, or orally pronounced. See, e.g., Pruitt v. State, 98 So.3d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), receded from on other grounds by Spear v. State, [128]*128109 So.3d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (en banc). On this basis, we grant the petition, and concluding that a new appeal concerning this limited issue is unnecessary, we remand with directions to strike this assessment.

PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

LEWIS, C.J., WETHERELL and RAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 So. 3d 127, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6933, 2015 WL 2143134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckenzie-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack