Merrett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Merrett v. State

670 So. 2d 1055, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2318, 1996 WL 106557

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 13, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1717

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 670 So. 2d 1055 (Merrett 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

Merrett v. State, 670 So. 2d 1055, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2318, 1996 WL 106557 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred (1) in sentencing her to one year of probation by enhancing her penalty from a second degree misdemeanor to a first degree misdemeanor, (2) in imposing investigative costs where the court failed to determine her ability to pay, and (3) in assessing court costs of $116.00, which exceeds the statutory maximum of $60.00. As the state concedes error on all points, the sentence is reversed and remanded.

First, the trial court is instructed to reduce the sentence to six months probation — the maximum probationary sentence for petit theft. § 948.16(1), Fla.Stat. (1993). Arnold v. State, 627 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Next, The right to appeal the investigative costs cannot be waived by the defendant’s failure to object. Beckford v. State, 667 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Burdo v. State, 667 So.2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Blanco-Diaz v. State, 618 So.2d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Since the probationary term has expired, and the trial court no longer has jurisdiction to decide the appropriateness of investigative costs, the investigative costs are stricken. Finally, the court costs are to be reduced to the statutory maximum of $50.00. § 27.3455(l)(b) Fla.Stat. (1993).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred (1) in sentencing her to one year of probation by enhancing her penalty from a second degree misdemeanor to a first degree misdemeanor, (2) in imposing investigative costs where the court failed to determine her ability to pay, and (3) in assessing court costs of $116.00, which exceeds the statutory maximum of $60.00. As the state concedes error on all points, the sentence is reversed and remanded.

First, the trial court is instructed to reduce the sentence to six months probation — the maximum probationary sentence for petit theft. § 948.16(1), Fla.Stat. (1993). Arnold v. State, 627 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Next, The right to appeal the investigative costs cannot be waived by the defendant’s failure to object. Beckford v. State, 667 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Burdo v. State, 667 So.2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Blanco-Diaz v. State, 618 So.2d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Since the probationary term has expired, and the trial court no longer has jurisdiction to decide the appropriateness of investigative costs, the investigative costs are stricken. Finally, the court costs are to be reduced to the statutory maximum of $50.00. § 27.3455(l)(b) Fla.Stat. (1993).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

670 So. 2d 1055, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2318, 1996 WL 106557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merrett-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack