B.S.K. v. State, 53 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
B.S.K. v. State, 53 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: MALLORY MC CANN v. STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2018-07-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MALLORY MC CANN v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
However, we agree with McCann's contention that the trial court erred in imposing a $65 assessment pursuant to section 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statues (2015), because the order assessing costs and fees fails to indicate the applicable county ordinance.1 See Swift v. State, 53 So. 3d 394, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (citing Ayoub v. State, 901 So. 2d 311, 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)); Carter v. State, 173 So. 3d 1048, 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mojica v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Swift v. State, 53 So.3d 394, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (observing that under the 2007 version of section 938.29(1)(a) the defendant would only be liable for the assessment if the trial court pronounced it at sentencing and informed the defendant of the right to contest the amount at a hearing).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carter v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Pursuant to Swift v. State, 53 So.3d 394, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (citing Ayoub v. State, 901 So.2d 311, 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)), we affirm the cost but remand for the trial court to cite the appropriate ordinance.
cited Cited "see" McCann v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Swift , 53 So.3d at 395 .
discussed Cited "see" Mills v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See § 938.29(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007).” Swift v. State, 53 So.3d 394, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
cited Cited "see" Stephen v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Swift v. State, 53 So.3d 394, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
B.S.K., a Child
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 5D11-309.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Feb 7, 2011.
53 So. 3d 394
James S. Purdy, Public Defender and Joseph A. Palmer, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Petitioner., Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.
Cohen, Orfinger, Torpy.
Published
PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, B.S.K., filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that she was illegally detained due to an improperly prepared Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI). Finding that Petitioner is entitled to relief, we grant the petition.

Petitioner is charged with felony possession of a controlled substance, along with three misdemeanors. Her RAI includes one point based on the mistaken conclusion that the crime was committed in a well-planned and premeditated manner. Without the additional point, Petitioner’s total score on the RAI would be reduced to eleven points, which, by itself, does not support secure detention.

Therefore, with respect to case no. 2011-000774-CJCI, Petitioner shall be brought before the trial court immediately and line III.E. of the RAI shall be corrected to reflect zero points. Any other scoring error may be corrected at that time. If Petitioner does not score sufficient points under the corrected RAI and no other criteria for detention is found pursuant to section 985.255, Florida Statutes (2010), Petitioner shall be released to nonsecure detention or home detention.

PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

ORFINGER, TORPY, COHEN, JJ., concur.