Stillings v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stillings v. State

685 So. 2d 852, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12114, 1995 WL 681287

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 17, 1995

DocketNo. 94-02862

StatusPublished

This text of 685 So. 2d 852 (Stillings 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

Stillings v. State, 685 So. 2d 852, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12114, 1995 WL 681287 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) appeal, appellant raises three issues for consideration. We find no merit in the first two issues and affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence for possession and delivery of cocaine. We do, however, find merit in appellant’s argument that the imposition of $2.00 in discretionary costs was improper.

Appellant was assessed $2.00 pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993), without notice and an' opportunity to be heard. This court has held that a discretionary cost must be orally pronounced at sentencing so that a defendant is aware of the statutory basis for the cost and has the opportunity to object. Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Watson v. State, 647 So.2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Since this was not done in the present case, we hereby strike those $2.00 in costs.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and FRANK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) appeal, appellant raises three issues for consideration. We find no merit in the first two issues and affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence for possession and delivery of cocaine. We do, however, find merit in appellant’s argument that the imposition of $2.00 in discretionary costs was improper.

Appellant was assessed $2.00 pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993), without notice and an' opportunity to be heard. This court has held that a discretionary cost must be orally pronounced at sentencing so that a defendant is aware of the statutory basis for the cost and has the opportunity to object. Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Watson v. State, 647 So.2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Since this was not done in the present case, we hereby strike those $2.00 in costs.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and FRANK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

685 So. 2d 852, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12114, 1995 WL 681287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stillings-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack