Hatten v. State
Hatten v. State
578 So. 2d 841; 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3907; 1991 WL 65940
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Hatten v. State
Opinion of the Court
We affirm the conviction and sentence. However, we reverse the imposition of costs because the costs were imposed without adequate notice to and an opportunity to be heard by the defendant. See Mays v. State, 519 So.2d 618 (Fla. 1988); Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla. 1984).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
Concurring in Part
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I would reverse the conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell because the evidence is insufficient to prove con
I agree with the majority as to the reversal of the imposition of costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.