Strickland v. State

889 So. 2d 219, 2004 WL 2952862
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 22, 2004
Docket2D03-2972
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 889 So. 2d 219 (Strickland 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
Strickland v. State, 889 So. 2d 219, 2004 WL 2952862 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

889 So.2d 219 (2004)

George W. STRICKLAND, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D03-2972.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 22, 2004.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Celene Humphries, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

WHATLEY, Judge.

George W. Strickland appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and armed burglary, and he challenges the imposition of a discretionary cost. We affirm Strickland's convictions without opinion and reverse the imposition of the $150 cost.

Strickland argues, and the State properly concedes, that the portion of the sentence requiring Strickland to pay $150 pursuant to section 939.18(1), Florida Statutes (2003), must be reversed. "Section 939.18(1)(b) allows the trial court to impose this discretionary cost if it finds that the person has the ability to pay the cost, and payment of the cost will not interfere with the person's ability to pay child support and restitution." Patterson v. State, 796 So.2d 572, 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The trial court failed to make these findings, and therefore, the cost must be reversed.

Accordingly, we affirm Strickland's convictions and sentences, reverse the portion of the sentence imposing the above cost, *220 and remand to strike this cost from the sentence. The trial court may again impose this cost after complying with section 939.18(1)(b).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

SALCINES and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lambert v. State
912 So. 2d 1275 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Fernandez v. State
906 So. 2d 353 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Crum v. State
916 So. 2d 823 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
889 So. 2d 219, 2004 WL 2952862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strickland-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.