Messina v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Messina v. State

563 So. 2d 194, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4518, 1990 WL 85451

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 25, 1990

DocketNo. 89-992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 563 So. 2d 194 (Messina 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

Messina v. State, 563 So. 2d 194, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4518, 1990 WL 85451 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his sentence on several grounds. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Appellant’s second issue, involving the sentence which might be imposed if appellant were to violate the conditions of his probation, is not ripe for adjudication, and is therefore disregarded.

As to appellant’s challenge of the legality of the “probationary split sentence” imposed, we find that we are bound by Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1988).

With regard to appellant’s last issue, notwithstanding recent federal decisions,¹ we find that the trial court reversibly erred by imposing court costs on an indigent defendant without giving him notice and an opportunity to be heard, Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984); Clark v. State, 560 So.2d 244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Adair v. State, 558 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

The sentence is AFFIRMED, but the imposition of costs is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.

BOOTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur. BARFIELD, J., concurs with written opinion.

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