STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
J.L.P. AND K.L.M., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court lacked authority to impose costs as fines for failure to perform duties without a finding of contempt or compliance with procedural rules.
The trial judge ordered the Office of the State Attorney to reimburse the system for costs related to failure to prepare dispositional reports and fac…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fines cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
Two appeals have been consolidated for disposition as they involve the same issues. In State v. K.L.M., the trial judge entered two orders. The first order required the Office of the State Attorney to “reimburse the system the cost of $20.00” for “additional judicial labor” caused by the failure of the state attorney to prepare a written dis-positional report in a juvenile proceeding as previously ordered. The second order required reimbursement of $20.00 to the system for failure to facilitate the attendance of the law enforcement officer involved in the juvenile proceeding.
The order appealed in State v. J.L.P. required reimbursement of $20.00 for failure of the state attorney to prepare and file a written statement of the victim. We reverse the orders in both cases.
The imposition of these “costs,” which could be more accurately categorized as fines, arose from the entry of orders by the trial judge requiring the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the Office of the State Attorney, and others, to perform certain duties to assist him in preparing for dispositional hearings in juvenile matters. The propriety of these orders, as applied to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, has been addressed in In the Interest of T.A.J. v. State of Florida, 432 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1983), and State ex rel. Dept. of Health, etc. v. Salfi, 432 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1983).
We do not have the benefit of a transcript of the hearing at which Judge Salfi determined the cost of his additional labor. We know of no authority for an assessment of costs for such an item. We conclude therefore that it can only be justified as a fine for contempt. In this instance, there was no finding of contempt and the record does not reflect any compliance whatever with Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure 8.270 or 8.280.
REVERSED.
COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gibson v. Troxel, 453 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…Court costs are assessable only as provided by statute and then only at the termination of the case. Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Richardson, 343 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). There is no authority to assess costs to reimburse the system. State v. JLP, 435 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Similarly, attorney’s fees may be awarded only when provided for by agreement, by statute, or for creating a fund, unless they are accorded as a fine or sanction for indirect contempt, Miller v. Colonial Baking Co. of Alabama, 4…
-
State v. Shelton, 584 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…party it felt caused the trial delay. However, the trial court has no inherent authority to assess attorney’s fees or costs against the State Attorney’s Office in criminal cases. State v. Harwood, 488 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); State v. J.L.P., 435 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Nor is there any applicable rule or statute which would permit the assessment of such fees or costs. See Harwood; J.L.P. It appears that only through the use of criminal contempt procedures (direct or indirect),1 can .a trial c…
-
State v. Z.A., 195 So. 3d 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…mpose costs on the State Attorney’s Office, even if. the State-commits a discovery violation. See Nelson, 27 So. 3d at 759; State v. Shelton, 584 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); State v. Harwood, 488 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); State v. J.L.P., 435 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). At best, what happened here was a simple failure to communicate. And the only way that the trial court-could have imposed costs, would have been through initiating criminal contempt procedures against the assistant state attorne…
Authorities Cited
- In re the Interest of T.A.J. v. State, 432 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- State v. Salfi, 432 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)