Morris v. State
570 So. 2d 1113, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9311, 1990 WL 192314
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Morris v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 605 So. 2d 511 →
Opinion
We affirm appellant’s conviction. However, the trial court imposed costs against the indigent defendant and the record fails to reflect that the defendant was afforded notice or an opportunity to object, contrary to Harriel v. State, 520 So.2d 271 (Fla.1988). Therefore, we reverse that portion of the judgment which assesses the costs. See also Mays v. State, 519 So.2d 618 (Fla.1988); Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Morris v. State, 570 So. 2d 1113, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9311, 1990 WL 192314 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).
570 So. 2d 1113 (Morris v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Jenkins v. State
444 So. 2d 947 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1984)
Mays v. State
519 So. 2d 618 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1988)
Harriel v. State
520 So. 2d 271 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1988)