From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aud v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jun 30, 1995
657 So. 2d 52 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Opinion

No. 94-02263.

June 30, 1995.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County, Donald E. Pellecchia, J.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and D.P. Chanco, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Ron Napolitano, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


The appellant, James L. Aud, II, challenges certain costs imposed upon him as part of his sentence after he pled no contest to the charge of possession of cocaine. Appellant challenges a variety of costs which amounted to a total of $580. We find error, however, only in regard to two items of these costs. The court imposed a $300 drug fee and $25 in administrative court costs. These two items of costs were improperly imposed because the trial court did not set forth the statutory authority supporting these costs. Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

We, therefore, remand with instructions to strike these costs. The trial court may of course reimpose these costs if the proper statutory authority under which each cost is imposed is provided to appellant. See Reyes, 655 So.2d at 112. We affirm the trial court in all other respects.

Remanded with instructions.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Aud v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jun 30, 1995
657 So. 2d 52 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Case details for

Aud v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES L. AUD, II, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jun 30, 1995

Citations

657 So. 2d 52 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Citing Cases

Broward County v. Michaelson

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court correctly concluded that the reset fee is without the necessary…