Legal Opinion

Mitchell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 2, 1988No. 87-1245PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant challenges the imposition of court costs after his criminal conviction. The record does not indicate that appellant was provided notice or an opportunity to be heard on the issue of his ability to pay costs. The state concedes that a remand is required by the supreme court decisions in Harriel v. State, 520 So.2d 271 (Fla.1988), and Mays v. State, 519 So.2d 618 (Fla. 1988). See also Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984). We agree, and vacate the assessment of costs and remand with directions that appellant be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard prior…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Jenkins v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1984
  2. Mays v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1988
  3. Harriel v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1988

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Foster v. FosterDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1988

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API