Rhodes v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Rhodes v. State

580 So. 2d 159, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 436, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 900, 1991 WL 94289

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 6, 1991

DocketNo. 76697

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 580 So. 2d 159 (Rhodes v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rhodes v. State, 580 So. 2d 159, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 436, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 900, 1991 WL 94289 (Fla. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OVERTON, Judge.

We have for review Rhodes v. State, 566 So.2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), which certified the following question as being of great public importance:

WHETHER BULL V STATE, 548 SO.2D 1103 (FLA.1989), STANDS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT STATUTORILY MANDATED AND FIXED COSTS MAY BE IMPOSED ON CONVICTED INDIGENT CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS WITHOUT AFFORDING THEM SPECIAL NOTICE OR A HEARING SEPARATE FROM THE SENTENCING HEARING.

Id. at 594. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

At Rhodes’ sentencing hearing, mandatory costs in the amount of $225 were imposed against him without objection. The district court affirmed and certified the above question. We addressed the due process concerns inherent in the question in State v. Beasley, 580 So.2d 139 (Fla.1991). In Beasley, we held that the imposition of costs upon an indigent criminal defendant under this type of factual situation satisfies the two-part procedural due process test delineated in Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984).

In accordance with our decision in Beasley, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the decision of the district court.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, C.J., and McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

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

OVERTON, Judge.

We have for review Rhodes v. State, 566 So.2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), which certified the following question as being of great public importance:

WHETHER BULL V STATE, 548 SO.2D 1103 (FLA.1989), STANDS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT STATUTORILY MANDATED AND FIXED COSTS MAY BE IMPOSED ON CONVICTED INDIGENT CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS WITHOUT AFFORDING THEM SPECIAL NOTICE OR A HEARING SEPARATE FROM THE SENTENCING HEARING.

Id. at 594. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

At Rhodes’ sentencing hearing, mandatory costs in the amount of $225 were imposed against him without objection. The district court affirmed and certified the above question. We addressed the due process concerns inherent in the question in State v. Beasley, 580 So.2d 139 (Fla.1991). In Beasley, we held that the imposition of costs upon an indigent criminal defendant under this type of factual situation satisfies the two-part procedural due process test delineated in Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984).

In accordance with our decision in Beasley, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the decision of the district court.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, C.J., and McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

580 So. 2d 159, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 436, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 900, 1991 WL 94289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhodes-v-state-fla-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack