Raulerson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Raulerson v. State

544 So. 2d 338, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1416, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3254, 1989 WL 61540

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 13, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2101

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 544 So. 2d 338 (Raulerson 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

Raulerson v. State, 544 So. 2d 338, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1416, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3254, 1989 WL 61540 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

ERVIN, Judge.

We affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence for sale or delivery of cannabis. Cruz v. State, 465 So.2d 516 (Fla.1985); § 90.803(21), Fla.Stat. (1987).

However, we reverse that portion of the sentence which imposes costs upon the appellant, because costs were imposed without notice to him, and without a hearing on the matter.

“It is well settled that before costs may be assessed pursuant to sections 960.20, 943.25, and 27.3455, the state must provide a defendant with adequate notice and an opportunity to object to the assessment.” Moore v. State, 530 So.2d 61, 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), citing, among others, Mays v. State, 519 So.2d 618 (Fla.1988). “Furthermore, the imposition of such costs may be challenged even though no objection was raised in the trial court.” Moore, 530 So.2d at 64, citing, among others, Harriel v. State, 520 So.2d 271 (Fla.1988).

In the instant case, there is nothing in the record to indicate appellant received adequate notice regarding any of the costs imposed. In fact, the state concedes this issue in its brief. Therefore, the assessment of costs must be reversed and remanded for proceedings conducted in compliance with due process requirements.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

SHIVERS and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

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

ERVIN, Judge.

We affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence for sale or delivery of cannabis. Cruz v. State, 465 So.2d 516 (Fla.1985); § 90.803(21), Fla.Stat. (1987).

However, we reverse that portion of the sentence which imposes costs upon the appellant, because costs were imposed without notice to him, and without a hearing on the matter.

“It is well settled that before costs may be assessed pursuant to sections 960.20, 943.25, and 27.3455, the state must provide a defendant with adequate notice and an opportunity to object to the assessment.” Moore v. State, 530 So.2d 61, 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), citing, among others, Mays v. State, 519 So.2d 618 (Fla.1988). “Furthermore, the imposition of such costs may be challenged even though no objection was raised in the trial court.” Moore, 530 So.2d at 64, citing, among others, Harriel v. State, 520 So.2d 271 (Fla.1988).

In the instant case, there is nothing in the record to indicate appellant received adequate notice regarding any of the costs imposed. In fact, the state concedes this issue in its brief. Therefore, the assessment of costs must be reversed and remanded for proceedings conducted in compliance with due process requirements.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

SHIVERS and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

544 So. 2d 338, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1416, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3254, 1989 WL 61540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raulerson-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack