From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cruz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 13, 2002
830 So. 2d 892 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Summary

noting that a "fine pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes," that was identical to the 2003 version, was discretionary

Summary of this case from Stewart v. State

Opinion

Case No. 2D01-938

Opinion filed November 13, 2002.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Brandt C. Downey, III, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John C. Fisher, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Richard E. Doran, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


Nicholas Cruz challenges his judgment and sentence for felony habitual driving with license revoked. We affirm Cruz's judgment and sentence without discussion, but strike certain costs which were improperly imposed.

The trial court imposed a discretionary $2 fine pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes (1999), and a discretionary $150 cost under section 939.18, Florida Statutes (1999), without orally pronouncing these costs at sentencing. Therefore, we strike the imposition of these discretionary costs. See Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc) (holding that discretionary costs must be individually announced at sentencing in a manner sufficient for the defendant to know the legal basis for the cost imposed and to have an opportunity to object).

We also strike the requirement that the defendant pay $54 in investigative costs because, although the State requested this cost, it failed to provide supporting documentation. See King v. State, 696 So.2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that all costs of prosecution must be expressly requested by the state agency and supported with adequate documentation).

Finally, we strike a $3 "teen court" cost/fine which was imposed without citation to statutory authority. See Armstrong v. State, 696 So.2d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (stating that statutory authority for all costs, whether mandatory or discretionary, must be cited in the written order).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

BLUE, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED


Summaries of

Cruz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 13, 2002
830 So. 2d 892 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

noting that a "fine pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes," that was identical to the 2003 version, was discretionary

Summary of this case from Stewart v. State
Case details for

Cruz v. State

Case Details

Full title:NICOLAS CRUZ, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Nov 13, 2002

Citations

830 So. 2d 892 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

Stewart v. State

" However, the court adjudicated Mr. Stewart guilty and sentenced him for an August 29, 2003, robbery. Under…

Stewart v. State

We affirm the imposition of the teen court fee because the trial court did cite to the statutory authority…