Piper v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Piper v. State

537 So. 2d 201, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 247, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 211, 1989 WL 3281

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 20, 1989·No. No. 87-2905·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in imposing court costs and attorney fees without notice or the opportunity to be heard. Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984). Accordingly, we strike the cost provision without prejudice to the state to seek reassessment after proper notice to appellant. The judgments and sentences are affirmed in all other respects.

RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in imposing court costs and attorney fees without notice or the opportunity to be heard. Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984). Accordingly, we strike the cost provision without prejudice to the state to seek reassessment after proper notice to appellant. The judgments and sentences are affirmed in all other respects.

RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Piper v. State, 537 So. 2d 201, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 247, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 211, 1989 WL 3281 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

537 So. 2d 201 (Piper v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related