Mitchell v. State

528 So. 2d 1295, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1804, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3447, 1988 WL 78720
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 2, 1988·No. No. 87-1245·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant challenges the imposition of court costs after his criminal conviction. The record does not indicate that appellant was provided notice or an opportunity to be heard on the issue of his ability to pay costs. The state concedes that a remand is required by the supreme court decisions in Harriel v. State, 520 So.2d 271 (Fla.1988), and Mays v. State, 519 So.2d 618 (Fla. 1988). See also Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984). We agree, and vacate the assessment of costs and remand with directions that appellant be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the imposition of costs.

SMITH, C.J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.

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

Mitchell v. State, 528 So. 2d 1295, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1804, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3447, 1988 WL 78720 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

528 So. 2d 1295 (Mitchell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Foster v. Foster
528 So. 2d 1295 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)