The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 29
COURT SYSTEM FUNDING

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 29.018

29.018 Cost sharing of due-process services; legislative intent.—It is the intent of the Legislature to provide state-funded due-process services to the state courts system, state attorneys, public defenders, criminal conflict and civil regional counsel, and private court-appointed counsel in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. The state courts system, state attorneys, public defenders, criminal conflict and civil regional counsel, and the Justice Administrative Commission on behalf of private court-appointed counsel may enter into contractual agreements to share, on a pro rata basis, the costs associated with court reporting services, court interpreter and translation services, court experts, and all other due-process services funded by the state pursuant to this chapter. These costs shall be budgeted within the funds appropriated to each of the affected users of services.

History.—s. 95, ch. 2004-265; s. 20, ch. 2005-236; s. 21, ch. 2007-62.

F.S. 29.018 on Google Scholar

F.S. 29.018 on Casetext

Amendments to 29.018

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 29.018

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 29.018.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION, v. OFFICIAL REPORTERS, INC., 61 So. 3d 1269 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . transcription services necessary to meet constitutional or statutory requirements” from state revenues) and 29.018 . . .

MOORMAN, L. A. a v. HATFIELD,, 958 So. 2d 396 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . See § 29.018, Fla. Stat. (2005). . . . .

S. G. v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES,, 647 So. 2d 243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . In entering a final order, the agency relied on Rule 10M-29.018, Florida Administrative Code, and concluded . . . As appellant correctly informs us, HRS repealed Rule 10M-29.018 several weeks before it entered its final . . .