Schumacher v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schumacher v. State

523 So. 2d 1231, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 997, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1734, 1988 WL 36055

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 20, 1988

DocketNo. 87-2250

StatusPublished

This text of 523 So. 2d 1231 (Schumacher 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

Schumacher v. State, 523 So. 2d 1231, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 997, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1734, 1988 WL 36055 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, David Wesley Schumacher, challenges that portion of his judgment and sentence in which the trial court imposed a fine and court costs upon him. We reverse.

At sentencing, the trial court orally imposed a fine and costs totaling $770.50 upon the appellant without specifying the manner in which the amount was to be apportioned and without providing any statutory authority for the imposition of either the fine or costs. We, therefore, strike the fine and costs without prejudice to the trial court’s reimposing a fine and costs after the notice and hearing requirements of Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984), have been fully complied with. If the court again imposes a fine and costs, however, it should impose the fine and costs separately and provide statutory au[1232]*1232thority under which each amount is imposed. See Brown v. State, 506 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA), petition for review denied, 515 So.2d 229 (Fla.1987).

Reversed.

DANAHY, C.J., and SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, David Wesley Schumacher, challenges that portion of his judgment and sentence in which the trial court imposed a fine and court costs upon him. We reverse.

At sentencing, the trial court orally imposed a fine and costs totaling $770.50 upon the appellant without specifying the manner in which the amount was to be apportioned and without providing any statutory authority for the imposition of either the fine or costs. We, therefore, strike the fine and costs without prejudice to the trial court’s reimposing a fine and costs after the notice and hearing requirements of Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984), have been fully complied with. If the court again imposes a fine and costs, however, it should impose the fine and costs separately and provide statutory au[1232]*1232thority under which each amount is imposed. See Brown v. State, 506 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA), petition for review denied, 515 So.2d 229 (Fla.1987).

Reversed.

DANAHY, C.J., and SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 So. 2d 1231, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 997, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1734, 1988 WL 36055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schumacher-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack