Varela v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Varela v. State

550 So. 2d 40, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1954, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4661, 1989 WL 95306

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 16, 1989

DocketNo. 88-03095

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 550 So. 2d 40 (Varela 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

Varela v. State, 550 So. 2d 40, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1954, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4661, 1989 WL 95306 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHOONOVER, Judge.

The appellant, William Varela, challenges the sentences imposed upon him after this court reversed his original sentences in Varela v. State, 530 So.2d 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Except for the imposition of certain costs, we find no merit in any of his contentions and, accordingly, affirm. We agree, however, that the trial court erred by requiring the appellant to pay $5000 for the cost of prosecution and a $250 payment to the court improvement fund in addition to the $240 court costs imposed at appellant’s original sentencing. These additional costs were imposed without adequate notice or opportunity to object as mandated by Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984). We, accordingly, strike the additional assessments without prejudice to the state seeking to have them reimposed after proper notice.

Affirmed as modified.

RYDER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.

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

SCHOONOVER, Judge.

The appellant, William Varela, challenges the sentences imposed upon him after this court reversed his original sentences in Varela v. State, 530 So.2d 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Except for the imposition of certain costs, we find no merit in any of his contentions and, accordingly, affirm. We agree, however, that the trial court erred by requiring the appellant to pay $5000 for the cost of prosecution and a $250 payment to the court improvement fund in addition to the $240 court costs imposed at appellant’s original sentencing. These additional costs were imposed without adequate notice or opportunity to object as mandated by Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984). We, accordingly, strike the additional assessments without prejudice to the state seeking to have them reimposed after proper notice.

Affirmed as modified.

RYDER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

550 So. 2d 40, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1954, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4661, 1989 WL 95306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/varela-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack