Windham v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Windham v. State

664 So. 2d 334, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12761, 1995 WL 735469

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 14, 1995

DocketNo. 95-36

StatusPublished

This text of 664 So. 2d 334 (Windham 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

Windham v. State, 664 So. 2d 334, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12761, 1995 WL 735469 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In accordance with Lund v. State, 658 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), we strike the civil restitution lien order entered in this case, based on its noncompliance with the requirements of section 960.292(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). As was the case in Lund, the lien at issue here is invalid in that it does not identify the person or entity in whose favor it is imposed. In view of this disposition, we decline to reach the other issues presented by appellant regarding the interpretation of the statute and its constitutionality, and the absence of the defendant at the time the lien was imposed.

Appellant further argues that the trial court erred in imposing costs without reference to statutory authority. The state acknowledges and we agree that this issue should be remanded to the trial court for clarification as to the nature of each assessment and the statutory authority underlying it. We therefore strike the portion of the trial court’s order imposing costs totaling $680, without prejudice to the reimposition of these costs upon compliance with the proper procedures. See Bryant v. State, 661 So.2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Bradshaw v. State, 638 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). In all other respects, the judgment and sentence of the trial court is affirmed.

JOANOS, MICKLE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In accordance with Lund v. State, 658 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), we strike the civil restitution lien order entered in this case, based on its noncompliance with the requirements of section 960.292(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). As was the case in Lund, the lien at issue here is invalid in that it does not identify the person or entity in whose favor it is imposed. In view of this disposition, we decline to reach the other issues presented by appellant regarding the interpretation of the statute and its constitutionality, and the absence of the defendant at the time the lien was imposed.

Appellant further argues that the trial court erred in imposing costs without reference to statutory authority. The state acknowledges and we agree that this issue should be remanded to the trial court for clarification as to the nature of each assessment and the statutory authority underlying it. We therefore strike the portion of the trial court’s order imposing costs totaling $680, without prejudice to the reimposition of these costs upon compliance with the proper procedures. See Bryant v. State, 661 So.2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Bradshaw v. State, 638 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). In all other respects, the judgment and sentence of the trial court is affirmed.

JOANOS, MICKLE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

664 So. 2d 334, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12761, 1995 WL 735469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/windham-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack