Storts v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Storts v. State

572 So. 2d 562, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9752, 1990 WL 211722

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 28, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1977

StatusPublished

This text of 572 So. 2d 562 (Storts 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

Storts v. State, 572 So. 2d 562, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9752, 1990 WL 211722 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s judgment of conviction and sentence for robbery.

Costs were imposed by the trial court against appellant without giving appellant notice or an opportunity to be heard. We reverse such imposition of costs and remand with instructions to strike the costs imposed or conduct a hearing in accordance with Mays v. State, 519 So.2d 618 (Fla.1988); Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984) and Kelly v. State, 561 So.2d 1364 (Fla. 4th 1990).

We certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:

WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF COSTS AGAINST AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE COLLECTION OF THOSE COSTS MAKING THE QUESTION OF ABILITY TO PAY PREMATURE UNTIL ATTEMPT IS MADE TO COLLECT SUCH COSTS?

See Beasley v. State, 565 So.2d 721 (Fla. 4th 1990); Hostzclaw v. State, 561 So.2d 1323 (Fla. 4th 1990).

[563]*563AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

GLICKSTEIN, WALDEN and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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