TOREY BRADSHAW AND ALFORD R. MARTIN, APPELLANTS,
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.
Appellants Bradshaw and Martin appealed their aggravated battery convictions, challenging the admission of a co-defendant's testimony and the imposition of $1,241 in court costs without statutory citation. The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the cost assessment, holding that criminal court costs must have clear statutory authority and adequate record documentation.
The court held that while a local practice policy was not followed regarding notice of the co-defendant's testimony, there was no reversible error because no discovery rule was violated and the trial court took steps to ensure defendants were not prejudiced. The $1,241 cost assessment was reversed because criminal court costs must be supported by clear statutory authority with proper citation or adequate record explanation of what the costs represent.
[1] A trial court's imposition of court costs in a criminal case must be supported by statutory authority.
[2] A record must contain a citation to the statutory authority supporting the imposition of statutorily mandated costs.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“costs as such in criminal cases were unknown to the common law. As a consequence, recovery and allowance of such costs rest entirely on statutory provisions and no right to or liability for costs exists in the absence of statutory authorization.”
Establishes the foundational principle that criminal court costs require statutory authority and cannot exist at common law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTorey Bradshaw and Alford R. Martin were convicted of aggravated battery. At trial, the state called a co-defendant as a witness without advance notic…
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 Discretionary Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
Appellants, Torey Bradshaw and Alford R. Martin, appeal their convictions and sentences for aggravated battery. Appellants contend the trial court erred (1) in admitting the testimony of a co-defendant, after appellants pursued a trial strategy predicated on his absence; and (2) in imposing court costs of $1,241.00 without citation to statutory authority.
The first issue concerns the state’s alleged violation of the rules of discovery, by failing to advise appellants’ trial counsel of the state’s intention to call a co-defendant as a witness for the state at appellants’ trial. The trial court found, and we agree, there was no rule of discovery violation. The trial court did find, however, that a local practice policy was not followed and took steps to insure that the defendants were not prejudiced. We conclude that there was no reversible error committed by the trial court with respect to the first issue.
The second issue concerns the assessment of court costs without reference to statutory authority. It is well settled that costs cannot be assessed in a criminal ease unless there is statutory authority for their imposition. Wood v. City of Jacksonville, 248 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). This is because—
[cjosts as such in criminal cases were unknown to the common law. As a consequence, recovery and allowance of such costs rest entirely on statutory provisions and no right to or liability for costs exists in the absence of statutory authorization.
Wood, 248 So. 2d at 177. See also Scott v. State, 629 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Masters v. State, 358 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Although statutorily mandated costs may be imposed without notice to a defendant, State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla.1991), the record should contain a citation to the statutory authority which supports such costs. Sutton. In the case of discretionary costs, the Second District Court of Appeal has held that the defendant must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and the record must contain a citation to the statutory authority for the imposition of the costs. Sutton.
While we do not find it necessary in this case to set out a requirement as broad as that adopted by the Second District, we appreciate the appeal of a clearly defined standard against which to test the propriety of an assessment of discretionary costs. For example, in the instant case, the costs document contains an assessment of $1,241.00 for “Additional Court Costs.” The assessment is listed in a category designated “Other,” and contains no references to statutory authority for the imposition of these additional court costs, and nothing which would enable us to ascertain the purpose, hence, authority for the $1,241.00 assessment designated additional court costs. Meaningful appellate review cannot be conducted under these circumstances. Consequently, we conclude it is improper to impose additional court costs without reference to statutory authority, or an explanation in the record as to what the additional costs represent, which is sufficiently clear to permit a reviewing court to determine the statutory authority for the costs.
Accordingly, the assessment of additional court costs in the amount of $1,241.00 is stricken. On remand, the trial court may reimpose such discretionary costs as are authorized by statute, either with reference to proper statutory authority, or with a specific explanation as to what the cost assessment represents. In all other respects, the final orders of judgment and sentence are affirmed.
ERVIN and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (45 total)
-
Sliney v. State, 699 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 1997)…Bull v. State, 548 So. 2d 1103 (Fla.1989). To ensure meaningful appellate review, we also ask that the trial court list any other statute upon which it bases an assessment of costs. See State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla.1991); Bradshaw v. State, 638 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). It is so ordered. SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., concur. KOGAN, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which OVERTON and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. . Miranda v. Atizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602,…
-
NIX v. State, 84 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…So. 2d 562, 574 (Fla.2008); Carter v. State, 791 So. 2d 525, 526-27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). [*426] Statutorily-mandated costs may be imposed without notice and, thus, need not be specifically pronounced at the sentencing hearing. See Bradshaw v. State, 638 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). By contrast, discretionary costs must be orally pronounced at sentencing because such costs may not be imposed without affording the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard. See Smiley v. State, 704 So. 2d 191, 195 (Fla.…
-
Williams v. State, 845 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…nature of the particular fees constituting that lump sum or the authority for imposition of such fees. This was error. See Smiley v. State, 704 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Fisher v. State, 697 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Bradshaw v. State, 638 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). On remand, the trial court shall give the appellant an opportunity to be heard regarding the imposition of any costs which are discretionary. See Rhodes v. State, 683 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, we strike the as…
Previewing 3 of 45 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1991)
- Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Wood v. City OF Jacksonville, 248 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Masters v. State, 358 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Scott v. State, 629 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)