Scott v. State

656 So. 2d 568, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6398, 1995 WL 353594
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 14, 1995·No. No. 94-02440·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

WHATLEY, Judge.

The appellant, Michael Delano Scott, challenges his judgment and sentence for robbery with a firearm. We find merit only in his contention that the trial court erred in imposing a cost of $2.00 pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993), without announcing that cost at sentencing. That cost was a discretionary cost, which required notice and an opportunity to be heard. Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Priest v. State, 20 Fla.L.Weekly 84, — So.2d-(Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 28, 1994); Sutton v. State, 635 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Since Scott was not given notice and an opportunity to be heard as to that cost, the $2.00 imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13) is hereby stricken. Scott’s judgment and sentence is otherwise affirmed.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.

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

Scott v. State, 656 So. 2d 568, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6398, 1995 WL 353594 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

656 So. 2d 568 (Scott v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Scott v. State
665 So. 2d 337 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)