Mims v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mims v. State

470 So. 2d 838, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1488, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14560

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 12, 1985

DocketNo. 84-2296

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 470 So. 2d 838 (Mims 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

Mims v. State, 470 So. 2d 838, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1488, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14560 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Judge.

Wheelock Mims appeals from a judgment and sentence for grand theft.

The judgment orders Mims to pay $15.00 to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund and to pay $2.00 to the Law Enforcement Training and Correctional Officer Training Trust Fund pursuant to, respectively, section 960.20 and section 943.25(4), Florida Statutes (1983). Mims asserts that the costs were improperly assessed against him. We agree.

In Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984), the supreme court determined that the imposition of costs under section 960.20 and section 943.25(4) against an indigent defendant is permissible only after the defendant has been given adequate notice of such assessment and a full opportunity to object to it. Here, no prior notice was given the appellant that costs under section 960.20 and section 943.25(4) would be assessed against him.

Because of the disparity between the amount of the assessment and the cost to the State of attempting to recover it, we agree with the policy followed by the Fourth District and strike the assessment. Demers v. State, 468 So.2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

In all other respects the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

RYDER, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.

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