From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Imhoff v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 1, 1996
673 So. 2d 94 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Opinion

No. 94-03828.

May 1, 1996.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Diana M. Allen, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Douglas Chanco, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah F. Hogge, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


The trial court sentenced the appellant to probation for one count of third degree grand theft and ordered her to pay, among other amounts which she does not challenge, $100 for costs of prosecution pursuant to section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1993), and $100 to the Court Improvement Fund. We reverse because we agree with the appellant that imposing these two items was error.

We strike the assessment for the Court Improvement Fund because there is no statutory basis for this cost. Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We also strike the cost of prosecution assessment because the state neither requested this cost nor documented any amount. Golden v. State, 667 So.2d 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

DANAHY, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Imhoff v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 1, 1996
673 So. 2d 94 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Case details for

Imhoff v. State

Case Details

Full title:KIMBERLY J. IMHOFF, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: May 1, 1996

Citations

673 So. 2d 94 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing Cases

Gonse v. State

To impose this cost on remand, the State must request it and document the amount.See Imhoff v. State, 673…