Haskins v. State

Full title: Michelle Santiago HASKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Date published: Sep 23, 2022

348 So. 3d 657 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)

Opinion

Case No. 5D22-760

09-23-2022

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

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.

PER CURIAM.

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.

PER CURIAM.

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) )).

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

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

SASSO, TRAVER and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.