From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gandy v. State

Florida District Court of Appeals
May 24, 2024
386 So. 3d 266 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)

Opinion

Case No. 5D2023-3132

05-24-2024

Jessie A. GANDY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Teresa D. Sutton, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Stephen R. Putnam, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


On appeal from the County Court for Putnam County. Anne Marie Gennusa, Judge. LT Case No. 2023-CT-1463-A

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Teresa D. Sutton, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Stephen R. Putnam, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

We affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence, but we remand for a corrected costs judgment striking the $50 cost of investigation because it was not part of the plea agreement, requested by the State, or orally pronounced. See Giddens v. State, 338 So. 3d 424, 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022).

Affirmed and Remanded with instructions.

Makar, Kilbane, and Pratt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gandy v. State

Florida District Court of Appeals
May 24, 2024
386 So. 3d 266 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)
Case details for

Gandy v. State

Case Details

Full title:Jessie A. GANDY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Court:Florida District Court of Appeals

Date published: May 24, 2024

Citations

386 So. 3d 266 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)

Citing Cases

Sanders v. State

However, we remand for entry of a corrected judgment striking the $50 cost of investigation as "it was not…