Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Ramos v. State

Ramos v. State

569 So. 2d 1374, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8886, 1990 WL 180921
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ramos v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2367 →
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 21, 1990·No. No. 88-00194·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence for robbery with a weapon. However, we agree with appellant that attorney’s fees and costs were improperly imposed against him in the final judgment after not being mentioned at the sentencing hearing. Because the written order does not properly conform to the oral pro[1375]*1375nouncement, we strike the fees and costs without prejudice to reimpose if the court follows proper procedures.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

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

Ramos v. State, 569 So. 2d 1374, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8886, 1990 WL 180921 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

569 So. 2d 1374 (Ramos v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.