HASKINS v. STATE (2022)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Michelle Santiago HASKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D22-760

Decided: September 23, 2022

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Glendon George Gordon, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard A. Pallas, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

In this Anders ¹ appeal, we affirm Michelle Santiago Haskins’ judgment and sentence. We remand, however, for the trial court to identify the authority for the $271 in court costs it imposed during sentencing. See Cash v. State, 286 So. 3d 384, 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (“The law is well settled that trial courts lack the authority to impose costs and fines in criminal cases unless such imposition is specifically authorized by statute and the statutory authority is cited in the defendant's written disposition order.” (quoting J.S. v. State, 920 So. 2d 752, 753 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006))).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

FOOTNOTES

1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

PER CURIAM.

SASSO, TRAVER and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network