Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Durant v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 9, 2015No. 5D15-451Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTorpy, J.

Because the costs here were mandatory, there was no error in the imposition of those costs. Instead of affirming on that ground, the court takes the unnecessary step of overturning a precedent that is easily distinguished. Nevertheless, I agree that we should recede from Strickland v. State, 56 So.3d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), but not for the reason provided by the majority. I emphasize here that this is a case where the only colorable challenge to the costs is that the otherwise authorized costs were not orally pronounced.2 Appellant waived this argument by not filing a Florida Rule of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Maddox v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2000
  2. Jackson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2008
  3. Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2007
  4. Grubb v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006
  5. Strickland v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API