Wilkins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wilkins v. State

479 So. 2d 297, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2736, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17255

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 10, 1985

DocketNo. 84-712

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 479 So. 2d 297 (Wilkins 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

Wilkins v. State, 479 So. 2d 297, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2736, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17255 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Wesley Wilkins seeks review of a five-year prison sentence imposed by the trial court in excess of the guidelines’ recommended sentence. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(ll). The defendant contends that the trial court erred in relying upon prior charges for which the defendant had never been convicted and upon certain allegations made in the presentence investigation which were uncorroborated hearsay. We find merit in both of the defendant’s contentions and, consequently, reverse. Thrasher v. State, 477 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Cannada v. State, 472 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Scott v. State, 469 So.2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(11).

The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in ordering an assessment of attorney’s fees and costs without giving him proper notice. We agree that the defendant was improperly noticed, see Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984), and, therefore, reverse that order as well. Our reversal is without prejudice to the state to seek imposition of fees and costs upon proper notice. Jenkins, 444 So.2d at 950; see also Evans v. State, 452 So.2d 987, 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Wesley Wilkins seeks review of a five-year prison sentence imposed by the trial court in excess of the guidelines’ recommended sentence. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(ll). The defendant contends that the trial court erred in relying upon prior charges for which the defendant had never been convicted and upon certain allegations made in the presentence investigation which were uncorroborated hearsay. We find merit in both of the defendant’s contentions and, consequently, reverse. Thrasher v. State, 477 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Cannada v. State, 472 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Scott v. State, 469 So.2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(11).

The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in ordering an assessment of attorney’s fees and costs without giving him proper notice. We agree that the defendant was improperly noticed, see Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984), and, therefore, reverse that order as well. Our reversal is without prejudice to the state to seek imposition of fees and costs upon proper notice. Jenkins, 444 So.2d at 950; see also Evans v. State, 452 So.2d 987, 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 So. 2d 297, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2736, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkins-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack