From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Varela v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 16, 1989
550 So. 2d 40 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Opinion

No. 88-03095.

August 16, 1989.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Harry Lee Coe, III, Judge.

Julianne M. Holt, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Brenda S. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


The appellant, William Varela, challenges the sentences imposed upon him after this court reversed his original sentences in Varela v. State, 530 So.2d 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Except for the imposition of certain costs, we find no merit in any of his contentions and, accordingly, affirm. We agree, however, that the trial court erred by requiring the appellant to pay $5000 for the cost of prosecution and a $250 payment to the court improvement fund in addition to the $240 court costs imposed at appellant's original sentencing. These additional costs were imposed without adequate notice or opportunity to object as mandated by Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla. 1984). We, accordingly, strike the additional assessments without prejudice to the state seeking to have them reimposed after proper notice.

Affirmed as modified.

RYDER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.


Summaries of

Varela v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 16, 1989
550 So. 2d 40 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
Case details for

Varela v. State

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM VARELA, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Aug 16, 1989

Citations

550 So. 2d 40 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Citing Cases

Reyes v. State

Accordingly, we strike this assessment and prohibit its reassessment on remand. Aultman v. State, 515 So.2d…

Gore v. State

We agree and strike these costs without prejudice to the state to seek to have them reimposed after proper…