WHEELOCK J. MIMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 costs under sections 960.20 and 943.25(4) cannot be assessed against a defendant without prior notice and an opportunity to object.
The appellant was assessed costs under specific Florida Statutes following a conviction for grand theft. The appellant did not receive prior notice of…
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 Crimes Compensation Trust Fund cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
Wheelock Mims appeals from a judgment and sentence for grand theft.
The judgment orders Mims to pay $15.00 to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund and to pay $2.00 to the Law Enforcement Training and Correctional Officer Training Trust Fund pursuant to, respectively, section 960.20 and section 943.25(4), Florida Statutes (1983). Mims asserts that the costs were improperly assessed against him. We agree.
In Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984), the supreme court determined that the imposition of costs under section 960.20 and section 943.25(4) against an indigent defendant is permissible only after the defendant has been given adequate notice of such assessment and a full opportunity to object to it. Here, no prior notice was given the appellant that costs under section 960.20 and section 943.25(4) would be assessed against him.
Because of the disparity between the amount of the assessment and the cost to the State of attempting to recover it, we agree with the policy followed by the Fourth District and strike the assessment. Demers v. State, 468 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
In all other respects the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
RYDER, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The HERTZ Corp. & Hertz Int'l, Ltd. v. Sylma Abadlia and Houcine Abadlia, 489 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…cause of action and the defendant corporation’s activities in Florida. See Moo Young v. Air Canada, 445 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); American Motors Corporation v. Abrahantes, 474 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Setko Fasteners, Inc. v. Kuester, 470 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The complaint does not demonstrate any connection between the cause of action and appellants’ business activities in Florida, and therefore the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint are not sufficient to invoke long-arm jur…
-
Scurry v. State, 490 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…es and costs under sections 960.20 and 943.25(4). Appellant had been declared indigent, and therefore was entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard before the imposition of these sums. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984); Mims v. State, 470 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Hankerson v. State, 464 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Lastly, the court’s imposition of both a fine, to be paid to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund, and restitution to the worker’s compensation carrier was not erroneous. Sect…
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Demers v. State, 468 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)