Thorpe v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Thorpe v. State

453 So. 2d 487, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14331

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 27, 1984

DocketNo. 84-256

StatusPublished

This text of 453 So. 2d 487 (Thorpe 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

Thorpe v. State, 453 So. 2d 487, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14331 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no merit in appellant’s contention that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over this matter, and thus we affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence for concealing a child contrary to court order, a violation of section 787.04, Florida Statutes (1988). We agree with appellant’s assertion, however, that the trial court improperly imposed court costs and attorney’s fees against appellant for his defense by the public defender.

Section 27.56(1), Florida Statutes (1983), authorizes assessment of the challenged costs and fees against an indigent defendant after compliance with the notice and hearing requirements specified in section 27.56(7). Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947, 950 (Fla.1984); Shaffer v. State, 446 So.2d 1156, 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Anderson v. State, 415 So.2d 49, 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). See also Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720(d)(1). Our review of the record discloses that the trial court ordered payment of these costs without affording appellant adequate notice and an opportunity to object to the court’s determination. Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the final judgment imposing these assessments and remand for proper consideration of this matter. We affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence in a11 other respects.

RYDER, C.J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no merit in appellant’s contention that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over this matter, and thus we affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence for concealing a child contrary to court order, a violation of section 787.04, Florida Statutes (1988). We agree with appellant’s assertion, however, that the trial court improperly imposed court costs and attorney’s fees against appellant for his defense by the public defender.

Section 27.56(1), Florida Statutes (1983), authorizes assessment of the challenged costs and fees against an indigent defendant after compliance with the notice and hearing requirements specified in section 27.56(7). Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947, 950 (Fla.1984); Shaffer v. State, 446 So.2d 1156, 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Anderson v. State, 415 So.2d 49, 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). See also Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720(d)(1). Our review of the record discloses that the trial court ordered payment of these costs without affording appellant adequate notice and an opportunity to object to the court’s determination. Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the final judgment imposing these assessments and remand for proper consideration of this matter. We affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence in a11 other respects.

RYDER, C.J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

453 So. 2d 487, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thorpe-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack