Schwartz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schwartz v. State

648 So. 2d 1224, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 202, 1995 WL 15502

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 18, 1995

DocketNo. 93-02696

StatusPublished

This text of 648 So. 2d 1224 (Schwartz 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

Schwartz v. State, 648 So. 2d 1224, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 202, 1995 WL 15502 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

THREADGILL, Judge.

The appellant challenges his convictions and sentences for possession of cannabis and purchase of cannabis. We affirm the convictions without discussion, but remand for certain costs to be stricken.

We affirm the statutorily mandated costs of $250.00, which were properly imposed pursuant to sections 27.3455 and 960.20, Florida Statutes (1993). We strike, however, the remaining costs imposed. In Sutton v. State, 635 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), we held that costs of prosecution imposed pursuant to section 939.01, Florida Statutes must be proven by the state with consideration given to the defendant’s financial resources. We also held that discretionary costs, such as those for the court improvement fund and the drug education fund, cannot be imposed unless the defendant is given notice and an opportunity to be heard and the record recites the statutory authority for their imposition. 635 So.2d at 1033. Those procedures were not followed here.

We therefore affirm the convictions, but strike the costs of prosecution and discretionary costs. On remand the state may seek to reimpose the stricken costs consistent with the requirements of Sutton.

FRANK, C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.

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

THREADGILL, Judge.

The appellant challenges his convictions and sentences for possession of cannabis and purchase of cannabis. We affirm the convictions without discussion, but remand for certain costs to be stricken.

We affirm the statutorily mandated costs of $250.00, which were properly imposed pursuant to sections 27.3455 and 960.20, Florida Statutes (1993). We strike, however, the remaining costs imposed. In Sutton v. State, 635 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), we held that costs of prosecution imposed pursuant to section 939.01, Florida Statutes must be proven by the state with consideration given to the defendant’s financial resources. We also held that discretionary costs, such as those for the court improvement fund and the drug education fund, cannot be imposed unless the defendant is given notice and an opportunity to be heard and the record recites the statutory authority for their imposition. 635 So.2d at 1033. Those procedures were not followed here.

We therefore affirm the convictions, but strike the costs of prosecution and discretionary costs. On remand the state may seek to reimpose the stricken costs consistent with the requirements of Sutton.

FRANK, C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

648 So. 2d 1224, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 202, 1995 WL 15502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack