Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

681 So. 2d 728

Rodriguez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1996-05-22

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 2001

1 state decisions

Relies on 655 So. 2d 111 - Reyes v. State · 426 So. 2d 963 - Faison v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-05-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The appellant was convicted of armed burglary of a dwelling, armed robbery, sexual battery, and kidnapping. He received three concurrent life sentences and life probation. He challenges the kidnapping conviction and the imposition of certain costs.

¶2We find the trial court properly denied defense counsel’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the kidnapping count because the movement of the victim during the burglary and robbery satisfied the test laid out in Faison v. State, 426 So.2d 963 (Fla.1983).

¶3We agree, however, with the appellant that it was error to impose the $2 discretionary cost pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993), because the trial court did not give the appellant notice of the imposition of this cost at sentencing. Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc). The assessment of a $433 “cost/ fine” was also error as it was not orally announced at sentencing. We note that it would be a better practice for the sentencing court to list orally all items of costs that it is imposing at sentencing instead of lumping them together in one announced figure as was done here.

¶4Accordingly, we affirm the kidnapping conviction and sentence but strike the two cost items discussed above.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ„ concur.
/681/so2d/728 · .json · Public domain