Smith v. State, 88-1087
| Decision Date | 11 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1087,88-1087 |
| Citation | 543 So.2d 348,14 Fla. L. Weekly 1168 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1168 Davis SMITH, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Barbara L. Condon, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Laura Ann Griffin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
At a sentencing proceeding in open court, the trial judge orally stated that as a condition of probation, the defendant was to pay $5,000 in "costs" without reference to any statutory authority, without considering evidence as to the amount of actual costs, and without considering the financial circumstances of the defendant. Paragraph ten of the written probation order directs payment of the $5,000 courts costs "in accordance with F.S. § 27.3455(1), as directed by your Probation Officer."
Costs authorized by section 27.3455(1), Florida Statutes, are limited to $205 in felony cases. The trial court was authorized under section 939.01(1), Florida Statutes, to enter a judgment for the costs of prosecution against the defendant as a convicted person notwithstanding that formal adjudication of guilt was withheld pursuant to section 948.01(3), Florida Statutes. Clinger v. State, 533 So.2d 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). However, under this statutory authority, the state attorney must demonstrate the amount of the cost of prosecution (§ 939.01(6), Fla.Stat.) and the trial court must consider the financial resources of the defendant (§ 939.01(5), Fla.Stat.). Because the record on appeal fails to show these prerequisite procedural steps were taken, the condition of probation requiring the payment of $5,000 as court costs is stricken and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
CONDITION OF PROBATION RE COURT COSTS STRICKEN; CAUSE REMANDED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reyes v. State
...1st DCA 1992), review denied, 618 So.2d 211 (Fla.1993).9 See also Richter v. State, 597 So.2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Smith v. State, 543 So.2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).10 We are aware that these statutory requirements are burdensome for the trial courts. We understand the trial court's tem......
-
Gant v. State, 93-2440
...trial court should not have imposed the costs without considering the State's expenses or Defendant's ability to pay. Smith v. State, 543 So.2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Sec. 939.01(5) & (6), Fla.Stat. (1993). Accordingly, the trial court's assessment of the costs of prosecution should be re......
-
Norman v. State, 95-0892
...for reversal, Gant cited both the statute, §§ 939.01(5), (6), Fla.Stat. (1993), and the fifth district's decision in Smith v. State, 543 So.2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). While Smith properly construed section 939.01 to authorize the assessment of costs of prosecution only if the state demonst......
-
Pickett v. State
...pay must be stricken because it was unsupported by documentation. See Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Smith v. State, 543 So.2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). To the extent that the condition could be read to include reimbursement of the state attorney's fees, the condition is n......